Home » Our Passion » Legal Resources » Cross Examination

Cross Examination: Table of Contents

View Full Document

Part IV: Cross Examination

• CROSS-EXAMINATION……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
  • THE DEFENDANT HAS AN EXPRESS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO “CONFRONT” AND “CROSS-EXAMINE” ADVERSE WITNESSES…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
  • SIXTH AMENDMENT GUARANTEE OF CONFRONTATION INCLUDES RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
  • YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SEE THE WITNESS AGAINST YOU……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
  • APPLICABLE TO STATES THROUGH FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2
  • STATE “VOUCHER RULE” DENIED DEFENDANT HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2
  • RIGHT OF CROSS-EXAMINATION……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2
  • RIGHT TO FULL AND UNFETTERED CROSS-EXAMINATION……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2
  • WHAT’S GOOD FOR THE GOOSE IS GOOD FOR THE GANDER……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3
• RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4
  • HOW DOES ONE EFFECTIVELY CROSS-EXAMINE AN AMNESIAC?……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4
  • PRIOR TESTIMONY……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4
  • AS TO PRETRIAL MATTERS……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5
  • PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS [FED. EVID. RULE 104]……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5
  • RULE 104(a)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5
  • WHAT EVIDENCE MAY BE CONSIDERED?……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7
  • ACTUAL HEARING REQUIRED?……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9
  • NOT ENOUGH TO PROVE CONSPIRACY OR THAT BOTH ACCUSED AND DECLARANT VOLUNTARILY PARTICIPATED IN SAME……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10
  • STATEMENTS MUST HAVE BEEN MADE “DURING COURSE” OF CONSPIRACY11 CO-CONSPIRATOR’S RULE DOESN’T MEAN WHAT IT SAYS……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 11
  • STATEMENTS MUST HAVE BEEN MADE “IN FURTHERANCE” OF THE CONSPIRACY……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 11
  • CO-CONSPIRATOR’S EXCEPTION SHOULD NOT BE EXPANDED………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12
  • ADVISORY COMMITTEE OBSERVED DISTINCTION BETWEEN………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12
  • HEARSAY SULE AND CONFRONTATION CLAUSE………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12
  • IS APPROPRIATE OBJECTION “DENIAL OF SIXTH………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12
  • AMENDMENT RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION”,………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12
  • NOT MERELY “HEARSAY”?………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12
  • IS THERE A CONFRONTATION OBJECTION BEYOND HEARSAY?………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 14
• SCOPE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 14
  • LIMITATION ON CROSS-EXAMINATION HELD VIOLATIVE OF………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 14
  • CONFRONTATION GUARANTEED BY SIXTH AMENDMENT………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 14
  • BUT: CONFRONTATION CLAUSE VILATION NOW SUBJECT TO HARMLESS ERROR RULE……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 15
• IMPEACHMENT………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 16
  • R. EVID. RULE 607 ALLOWS IMPEACHING ONE’S OWN WITNESS………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 16
  • WHO IS THE GOVERNMENT’S CLIENT?………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 16
• R. EVID. RULE 608, CHARACTER AND CONDUCT OF WITNESS FOR THE TRUTHFULNESS……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 17
  • OPINION AND REPUTATION 17
  • SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF CONDUCT ARE NOT ADMISSIBLE 17
• R. EVID. RULE 803(21)………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18
• R. EVID. RULE 405, CHARACTER GENERALLY………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18
  • METHODS OF PROVING CHARACTER [FED. EVID. Rule 405………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18
  • PROOF OF CHARACTER [RULES 405(a) AND 608(a)]………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19
  • BY REPUTATION TESTIMONY………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19
  • BY OPINION TESTIMONY………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19
  • POLYGRAPH EVIDENCE MAY NOW BE ADMISSIBLE………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 21
  • LIMITATION ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CHARACTER WITNESS………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 22
• ONCE A LIAR………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 22
  • R. EVID. RULE 613, PRIOR STATEMENTS OF WITNESS………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 22
  • THE NEED TO OBTAIN PRIOR STATEMENTS AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY
  • …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 23
  • JENCKS ACT WITNESS STATEMENT [FED. EVID. RULE 26.2]………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 23
  • RULE 2 DOES NOT PRECLUDE PRETRIAL DISCLOSURE………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 25
  • WITNESS STATEMENTS ARE DISCOVERABLE AT “DETENTION HEARING”………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 27
  • WITNESS STATEMENTS ARE DISCOVERABLE AT SUPPRESSION HEARING………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 27
  • THE NEED TO INTERVIEW THE GOVERNMENT CLIENT………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 28
  • EVEN IF THE GOVERNMENT’S CLIENT IS IN “PROTECTION” PROGRAM………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 28
  • PRE-SENTENCE REPORTS OF CO-DEFENDANTS………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 28
  • “IMPEACHMENT” EVIDENCE IS “EXCULPATORY” FOR BRADY PURPOSES………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 29
  • BRADY LIVES………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 32
  • REGARDLESS WHETHER PROSECUTOR ACTUALLY AWARE OF………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 32
  • EVIDENCE………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 32
  • WHETHER EVIDENCE IS EXCULPATORY OR ONLY “IMPEACHING”………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 33
  • EVEN IF NEVER REQUESTED BY THE DEFENSE………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 33
  • NEED NOT UNDERCUT EVERY ITEM OF INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 33
  • AS IF JUSTICE SOUTER LISTENED TO J.’s CLOSING ARGUMENT………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 33
  • STUTTER-STEP BACKWARDS?………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 35
• R. EVID. RULE 614, INTERROGATION BY THE COURT………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 35
  • WHY WOULD THE WITNESS BE TELLING THIS STORY IF IT WASN’T THE TRUTH- SOME WITNESSES ARE PAID WITH MONEY, SOME WITH A COMMODITY MORE VALUABLE, THEIR LIFE OR THEIR LIBERTY……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 35
  • BIAS, MOTIVE OR PREJUDICE………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 36
• “OTHER CRIMES” EVIDENCE [RULE 404(b)]………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 39
• WOULD YOU BUY A USED CAR FROM THIS PERSON? PRIOR CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 44
• COUNSEL MAY DESIRE TO PIN DOWN THE “COOPERATING WITNESS” ON PARTICULAR ISSUES AND THEN OFFER CONTRADICTORY EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE BY WAY OF OTHER WITNESSES OR EXHIBITS TO DEMONSTRATE BIAS……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 46
  • THIS MAY INCLUDE SUCH AREAS AS WHETHER WITNESS’ WIFE WAS HAVING AN AFFAIR WITH DEFENDANT OR CO-DEFENDANT……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 46
  • OR DESIRE TO PROTECT OTHERS………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 46
  • “RULE OF COMPLETENESS”………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 46