Trial Process & Objections
Duties in Examination in Chief & Cross-exam
Examination in Chief
← to obtain testimony in support of the version of the facts in issue which the party calling the
witness contends
Duties during cross examination
Leading questions—can & should be asked: McClure v Mitchell
On Counsel—not to pursue irrelevant/fruitless lines of cross examination: Wakeley &
Bartling
On Judge—not to restrict unduly the latitude of defence counsel‘s argument: Wakeley &
Bartling (possession of heroin—defence in cross-exam sought to establish that one of other
officers at raid died of heroin shortly afterwards—denied by TJ as only to credit of police
duty on counsel to confine cross exam | duty on judge not to unduly restrict)
Objections
Leading questions
Leading Questions are questions which— Mooney v James
suggest the desired answer, or
assume the existence of a fact in dispute
General Rule
Counsel may not ask leading questions to their own witnesses (examination in chief | re-
examination)
Exceptions
Formal introductory matters (name, address, occupation)
Matter not in dispute (eg where and when the accident occurred)
Purpose of identification of exhibits: Mooney v James (is that the knife you found beside the
body?)
To get a witness quickly to a matter that is in dispute (you were standing on the corner
before the accident)
Assisting memory where the witness‘s memory has failed on a particular topic
o only used at end if witness has given as much detail as possible previously—in
court‘s discretion
In examining an expert witness
In examining witnesses who have been declared hostile
Objectives of cross-examination
to obtain evidence to support own case
To qualify, weaken or destroy evidence in chief
Where necessary, to attack the credit of the witness (however this is not easily achieved) Nonspecific / Too General
eg. ―What happened on 1 January‖
Confusing, Misleading, Ambiguous, Vague, Unintelligible
= Not sufficiently specific when talking about a string of events
eg. Who was at the meeting? When there are three or four meetings in issue
eg. What was he doing? Where it is ambiguous as to who ‗he‘ is
Compound / Duplicitous
= contains two or more questions such that answer will not make sense
Argumentative
= not legitimately seeking information, just seeking to provoke witness
Content of Question
Repetitive
= repeating the same or similar question
Calling for a conclusion
= asking to draw inferences from statements of fact
This role is for the tribunal of fact, not the witness
Calling for an opinion which witness is not qualified to give
= asking a non-expert witness to give an expert opinion
Normal witness can give evidence on things within their perception
To give an opinion about something the witness must first be established as an expert
eg. Do you think he was insane? to a non-expert witness
Speculative
= Witness could not know the answer by perception through their 5 senses
eg. Could the man in the alley see you?
Unfounded attacks on credit
Non-compliance with the rule in Browne v Dunn
= Contradicting evidence-in-chief of a witness without putting alternative to witness in cross-
examination
Examples of non-compliance—
o Leading evidence to contradict the witness after their testimony
o asking the jury to draw an alternative inference
Witness must be given chance to explain inconsistency
To comply with rule, must— (Nicholls v R)
o put the particulars of the contradicting evidence to the witness and
o explain how it will be proved
Improper use of an Prior Inconsistent Statement Before entering a PIS must prove—
It is relevant to the facts in issue
The witness does not distinctly admit making it (= admit making it & maintain its contents are
true)
Breach of s20 Queensland Evidence Act
Question will be disallowed if it only is relevant to matters of credit and the answer to the
question would not materially impair confidence in the reliability of the evidence given by the
witness
Breach s21 Queensland Evidence Act
Question is an improper question –
More
Less