cross-examination

from WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006)
cross-examination
    n 1: (law) close questioning of a hostile witness in a court of
         law to discredit or throw a new light on the testimony
         already provided in direct examination
    
from The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48
cross-examination \cross"-ex*am`i*na"tion\
   (kr?s"?gz-?m`?-n?"sh?n; 115), n. (Law)
   The interrogating or questioning of a witness by the party
   against whom he has been called and examined. See
   {Examination}.
   [1913 Webster]

   2. [fig.] close or detailed questioning.
      [WordNet 1.5]
    
from The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48
Examination \Ex*am`i*na"tion\, n. [L. examinatio: cf. F.
   examination.]
   1. The act of examining, or state of being examined; a
      careful search, investigation, or inquiry; scrutiny by
      study or experiment.
      [1913 Webster]

   2. A process prescribed or assigned for testing
      qualification; as, the examination of a student, or of a
      candidate for admission to the bar or the ministry.
      [1913 Webster]

            He neglected the studies, . . . stood low at the
            examinations.                         --Macaulay.
      [1913 Webster]

   {Examination in chief}, or {Direct examination} (Law), that
      examination which is made of a witness by a party calling
      him.

   {Cross-examination}, that made by the opposite party.

   {Re["e]xamination}, or {Re-direct examination}, (Law) that
      questioning of a witness at trial made by the party
      calling the witness, after, and upon matters arising out
      of, the cross-examination; also called informally
      {re-direct}.

   Syn: Search; inquiry; investigation; research; scrutiny;
        inquisition; inspection; exploration.
        [1913 Webster]
    
from Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856)
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 make 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 
falsehood. 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-
examining, 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 willfully dishonest.

Arch. Crim. Pl. 111. See Credible Witness. 
    

[email protected]