The Importance Of Prosecutor's Cross-Examination

INTRODUCTION

IN these days when it is impossible to know everything, but becomes necessary for success in any avocation to know something of everything and everything of something, the expert is more and more called upon as a witness both in civil and criminal cases. In these times of specialists, their services are often needed to aid the jury in their investigations of questions of fact relating to subjects with which the ordinary man is not acquainted.

Cross-examination is an art form only - occasionally practiced by prosecutors, who instead necessarily focus much of their efforts on direct examination. This is brought on by the prosecution bearing the burden of proof and the simple realities of many criminal trials where the defense may

Cross-examination by the defense asks the jury to question what was done procedurally during the stop and arrest, to challenge the validity of scientific tests or to doubt the law enforcement officer’s competency or even integrity. The prosecutor’s cross-examination can be an effective tool to repair any damage that occurred in defense cross or direct testimony by bolstering the jury’s faith in the fairness of the prosecutor and officer and their search for truth. Many would argue that the practical purpose of cross-examination is simply to undermine or destroy direct testimony.

However, the legal purpose of cross-examination is a good faith quest for ascertaining truth and the prosecutor should use it justly and legitimately. Cross examination of fact witnesses will differ from that of expert witnesses but a prosecutor’s goals remain the same. Choosing the type and form of cross-examination, therefore, should be done in light of the State’s theory of the case and organized in such a manner as to reduce confusion and seek the truth. There are four basic goals for a prosecutor to consider in the cross-examination of each defense witness:

• Obtain factual admissions helpful to the State’s case;

• Corroborate the testimony of the State’s

No cause reaches the stage of litigation unless there are two sides to it. If the witnesses on one side deny or qualify the statements made by those on the other, which side is telling the truth? Not necessarily which side is offering perjured testimony, there is far less intentional perjury in the courts than the inexperienced would believe, but which side is honestly mistaken? for, on the other hand, evidence itself is far less trustworthy than the public usually