Preview

Articles: Cross-Examination In Summary Trial

Better Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1982 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Articles: Cross-Examination In Summary Trial
Cross-examination is a very important process in summary trial. The main object of cross-examination is to find the truth and defection of falsehood in human testimony. It is design to destroy or weaken the force of evidence a witness has already given in person or elicit something into your favour which he has not stated to discredit him by showing object of cross-examination from a litigious standpoint.

Whether a prosecution witness once had impeachment proceeding completed against him, ought to be still cross examined by the defence counsel or not ? The matter about the cross-examined has been stated in the section 173 (e) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 173 (e) of the CPC stated that :

(e) The accused shall be allowed to cross-examine all the witnesses for the prosecution.

So, we can see that this section makes provision for the accused to cross-examine all witnesses for the prosecution. Okay, that is the basic. Denial of opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the prosecution witness will be an improper exercise of judicial discretion and will amount to miscarriage of justice[1]. It is trite that there is an obligation on the defence during the stage of cross-examination to put all question that are relevant and known to the particular witness, which the accused intends to rely upon his defence to enable the witness a chance to agree or disagree with the defence case.[2] The problem is whether the defence counsel also can still cross-examine the prosecution witness although the impeachment proceeding has been completed against him. Actually in practice, our courts have been very liberal and does not deny or interfere in cross-examination. To the credit, of our courts, notwithstanding, there is no express provision to defer cross-examination. Our courts have permitted the cross examination of any witness to be deferred until any other witnesses to be recalled for further cross examination. If we look at the Evidence Act 1950, section 138 of

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    course of the trial. A team that deals with creation of material facts in this fashion will…

    • 4821 Words
    • 20 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Minnoesota V. Ronald Riff

    • 1596 Words
    • 7 Pages

    In this case, the prosecuting attorney are to communications orally and also in writing. The prosecutor main goal is to prove to both the judge and jury that the defendant is in guilty. The prosecutor opening the statement of Riff did knowingly commit the crime of breaking, and burglary on September 30, 2011 between 12:10am and 12:20 am orally to the judge and jury. The incident located at the Marquette’s Market on 1234 Main St. Midtown, Minnesota 44333, which the owner of the market is known as Speedy Marquette. It the prosecutor choice to share his/her witnesses including all evidence with the defense attorney before trail begins and to present evidence against the defendant to both jury and the judge. “All witnesses in this case include: Otis Ripple, Soapy Water, Marty Martini, C. Sharp, Betty Bitty, Rusty Fender, Guido Concertino, and the arresting officer are orally examined by the prosecution, and then the defense.” (Curran, P. & Strauch, G.). When prosecutor finish presented their parts, then it’s a choice for the defense to present their part of evidence. The prosecutor has choices of whether to examine all the defense witnesses to set straight all their statements, and to make sure that the defense is being guilty. The defendant witnesses include: Red Chips, Ace Harte, Jacques, Orbedder, Vibes Blare, Sally Slick, Matilda Slick and Gigi Gig have all been questioned by their defense attorney. Now that the defense has finish point out their statement and all of the witness are being examined and crossed, and all evidence has been presented both orally and in…

    • 1596 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Gravel v. US

    • 465 Words
    • 2 Pages

    1. Under the Speech and Debate Clause, are members of Congress exempt from questioning in the investigation of the commission of a crime? Yes…

    • 465 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    The seventh step is postverdict motions. This is where the defense can file motions in behalf of the defendant. The defense can argue that the jurors could not have possible found the defendant guilty from the evidence…

    • 920 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Senate impeachment trail lasted form January 7, 1999 until February 12. No witnesses were called during the trail. The perjury charge was defeated with 45 votes for conviction and 55 against. The obstruction of justice charge was defeated with 50 for conviction and 50 against. Again, the impeachment effort lacked bipartisan support, with no Democratic votes for conviction. In March, 1998 Kathleen Willey, a White House aide, alleged that Clinton had sexually assaulted her. Also in 1998, Juanita Broaddrick alleged that Clinton had raped her in 1978. No evidence was produces of charges brought; despite being acquitted in his Senate impeachment trail, Clinton was disbarred from practicing Law for five years by the Senate of Arkansas and the United States Supreme Court.…

    • 447 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    On the first half of the interview, Cox and Allison, were certain about their testimony. After long hours of interrogation, the two witnesses have complied with the police’s story to avoid conflict and to be released from custody. The witnesses have also become suggestible during the interrogation, they have answered falsely in some leading questions to please the interviewer. An interview with an should not give any kind of stress to the witness. The police should help the witnesses remember by keeping them relax and asking relevant questions instead of using the coercive Reid…

    • 589 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    "The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination . . . As for the procedural safeguards to be employed…

    • 1875 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    picture timeline

    • 500 Words
    • 2 Pages

    V. No man or chief shall be permitted to sit as judge of act on a jury to try his particular friend (or enemy), or one who is especially connected with him. Wherefore if any man be condemned or acquitted, and it shall afterwards be made to appear, that some one who tried him acted with partiality for the purpose of favoring his friend (or injuring his enemy), or for the purpose of enriching himself, then there shall be a new trial allowed before those who are impartial.…

    • 500 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Federal Rules of Evidence

    • 3961 Words
    • 16 Pages

    The cross-examiner may always inquire into these four areas without having any basis whatever for believing that there is any infirmity in the witness's testimony. For example, one could ask a witness…

    • 3961 Words
    • 16 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Jury Trial Analysis Paper

    • 1200 Words
    • 4 Pages

    In this paper I will provide an analysis of a jury trial; my analysis will focus on the right of the defendant. I will articulate how a defendant 's rights at trial can be assured when it comes to The defendant’s right to a speedy trial, the defendant’s right to an impartial judge and the defendant’s right to an impartial jury.…

    • 1200 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Scopes Trial

    • 668 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The Scopes Trial is a famous trial that had one main topic to focus on: evolution. This trial was brought on because John Scopes taught his students about evolution. The trial happened in 1925 in Tennessee. For creationists and evolutionists, this was a huge trial because it was the first major account of the teaching of evolution. Although this seems as a simple matter between creationists and evolutionists, there is more to meets the eye. The Scopes Trial was more complicated. The three reason why the trial was more complicated than just a simple debate between evolutionists and creations are being able to bring up and discuss the newly passed law that evolution was not to be taught in schools, evolutionists could finally point out examples of evolution through science to show how it is important to learn, and to bring up an argument of traditional and modern views.…

    • 668 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Please accept this letter as a complaint of employment discrimination based on gender by Alice Bennett. Please also accept this letter as an appearance by Marcia Robinson of Auburn University Legal Services on behalf of Mrs. Alice Bennett.…

    • 643 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Trials And Verdicts

    • 785 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The constitution is the basis of all criminal law as well as trials and their verdicts. The constitution and the state and federal court systems have been in effect since the nineteenth century. Each and every court case has their own unique processes related to the different courts and how the case made it to any specific one, taking a plea bargain as an alternative to facing trial and what happens to the wrongfully accused will help understand a little more about the ins and outs of trials and verdicts.…

    • 785 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Jury Trial Analysis

    • 956 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Opening Statements and Prosecution’s Witnesses. At the beginning of the trial the prosecution as well as the defense will make an opening statement. This statement will give the jury and judge an overall summary of what both sides will intend to prove during the trial. Once opening statements are complete, the prosecution will start to call witnesses that he or she believes will assist in proving the case. The witnesses will give testimony based on what he or she witnessed personally. In addition, the prosecution may call upon expert witnesses to give their points of view on the case based on their professional knowledge. The prosecutor’s main goal is to persuade jury…

    • 956 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Maria Elena Case Study

    • 1456 Words
    • 6 Pages

    This issue does not have any resolutions or a solution. You could consider taking the advice of an immigration lawyer but you will be putting yourself under the scrutiny of the INS…

    • 1456 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays