CROSS BILLS,
practice. When an individual prosecutes a bill of indictment against
another, and hte defendant procures another bill to be found against the
first prosecutor, the bills so found by the grand jury are called corss
bills. The most usually occur in cases of assault and battery.
2. In chancery practice it is not unusual for parties to file cross bills. Vide Bill, cross.
CROSS-EXAMINATION,
practice. The examination of a witness, by the party who did not call
him, upon matters to which he has been examined in chief.
2.
Every party has a right to cross-examine a witness produced by his
antagonist, in order to test whether the witness has the knowledge of
the things he testifies and if, upon examination, it is found that the
witness had the means and ability to ascertain the facts about which he
testifies, then his memory, his motives, everything may be scrutinized
by the cross- examination.
3.
In cross-examinations a great latitude is allowed in the mode of
putting questions, and the counsel may put leading questions. (q. v.)
Vide further on this subject, and for some rules which limit the abuse
of this right, 1 Stark. Ev,. 96; 1 Phil. Ev. 210; 6 Watts & Serg.
75.
4.
The object of a cross-examination is to sift the evidence, and try the
credibility of a witness who has been called and given evidence in
chief. It is one of the principal tests which the law has devised for
the ascertainment of truth, and it is certainly one of the most
efficacious. By this means the situation of the witness, with respect to
the parties and the subject of litigation, his interest, his motives,
his inclinations and his prejudices, his means of obtaining a correct
and certain knowledge of the facts to which he testifies the manner in
which he has used those means, his powers of discerning the facts in the
first instance, and of his capacity in retaining and describing them,
are fully investigated and ascertained. The witness, however artful he
may be, will seldom be able to elude the keen perception of an
intelligent court or jury, unless indeed his story be founded on truth.
When false, he will be liable to detection at every step. 1 Stark. Ev.
96; 1 Phil. Ev. 227; Fortese. Rep. Pref. 2 to 4; Vaugh. R. 143.
5.
In order to entitle a party to a cross-examination, the witness must
have been sworn and examined; for, even if the witness be asked a
question in chief, yet if he mahe no answer, the opponent has no right
to cross-examine. 1 Cr. M. & Ros. 95; 1 16 S. & R. 77; Rosc. Cr.
Ev. 128; 3 Car. & P. 16; S. C. 14 E. C. L. Rep. 189; 3 Bouv. Inst.
n. 3217. Formerly, however, the rule seems to have been different. 1
Phil. Ev. 211.
6.
A cross-examination of a witness is not always necessary or advisable. A
witness tells the truth wholly or partially, or he tells a falsebood.
If he tells the whole truth, a cross-examination may have the effect of
rendering his testimony more circumstantial, and impressing the jury
with a stronger opinion of its truth. If he tells only a part of the
truth, and the part omitted is favorable to the client of the counsel
cross-exaimining, he should direct the attention of the witness to the
matters omitted. If the testimony of the witness be false, the whole
force of the cross-examination should be directed to his credibility.
This is done by questioning him as to his means of knowledge, his
disinterestedness, and other matters calculated to show a want of
integrity or veracity, if there is reason to believe the witness
prejudiced, partial, or wilfully dishonest. Arch. Crim. Pl. 111. See
Credible Witness.
No comments:
Write comments