- “Cross-examination is hard. It is frequently dramatic, often exciting and in many ways it defines our adversarial system of justice. Cross-examination is the ultimate challenge for the trial lawyer… A poor cross examination… can be truly disastrous. The witnesses can range from un co-operative to hostile, and you constantly run the risk of actually adding weight or sympathy to the other side’s case. Moreover, most cross examinations will inevitably be perceived by the trier of fact as a contest between the lawyer and witness. You can seldom afford to appear to lose.
In other words, cross examination is inherently risky. The witness may argue with you. The witness may fill in the gaps left in the direct testimony. The witness may make you look bad. You may make yourself look bad. And whatever good you accomplish may be subject to immediate cure on re-direct examination.
None of these problems can be avoided entirely, but they can be minimized.” Lubert, Steven;
Modern Trial Advocacy, Law School Edition (2004)
- Discuss the rules that an advocate must adhere to in order to minimize the problems and perils of cross-examination and execute it effectively.
(10 marks) (b) Give an outline of the critical rules or warnings regarding what an advocate must not do in reexamination.
ATP 104 Trial Advocacy 2015-1-2