Cross-examination, the examination of a witness by the opposite side, generally after examination in chief, but some times without such examination; as in the case of an examination on the voir dire, which is in the nature of a cross-examination (see VOIR DIRE); and also if one party calls a witness,and he is sworn, the other party may cross-examine him, although the party who has called him put no question at all to him. Some times questions in cross-examination are allowed by the judge after re-examination. See RE-EXAMINATION. And if a witness be called to prove some preliminary and collateral matter only, as the handwriting of a document tendered in evidence, he is a witness in the cause, and may be cross-examined as to any of the issues in the cause.
As to theform of the cross-examination, leading questions are allowed, which is not the case in examination in chief.
The questions must be relevant to the issue (see infra), but great latitude is allowed, as a question seemingly irrelevant often turns out otherwise.
In the case of a witness proving himself hostile from interest or othrwise, the judge may allow the examination in chief to assume the form of cross-examination.
It is provided by (English) R. S. C., 1883, Ord. XXXVI., r. 38, that the judge may disallow vexa-tions and irrelevant questions, and by s. 25 of the C.L.P. Act, 1854, that if a witness deny a conviction for felony, it may be proved.
The following are some of the chief heads of cross-examination:--
I. To cause the witness to alter or amend his evidence.
1. (a) By showing--
(1) he has spoken on a misconception of fact; or
(2) misunderstands the meaning of a word; or
(3) has given his idea of the effect of a transaction instead of the details.
(b) by inquiring the grounds of his belief.
(c) by appealing to his consciousness of a weak memory [this courseis taken with very old people].
(d) reminding him that he has spoken othrwise, or that others have; and other methods of showing his evidence ought not to be believed, which will come more fully under II.
2. Tomodify the evidence given in chief, by causing the witness to speak to supplementary facts to show--
(a) the reasonfor what was done.
(b) the circumstances surrounding it. See infra, II. B.
(c) the manner in which it was treated at the time.
II. To discredit the evidence of the witness.
A. From reasons connected with himself--
(a) that he is of bad character
(1) generally.
(2) in regrd to truthfulness.
(3) in regard to the subject-matter of the issue.
(b) that he is not impartial, as being
(1) a friend of the other side, through
(a) relationship.
(b) favour.
(g) corruption.
(2) a friend of his cause
(a) to screenhis own character.
(b) to conduce to his profit.
(3) an enemy of the cross-examining party.
(a) presumably, having been punished or unjustly injured by him.
(b) apparently, having spoken revengefully of or previously injured him.
Greater ltitude is allowed in examining (on these heads) a party to a cause than another witness.
B. From reasons arising out of his evidene by causing him to give further evidene, inconsistent--
(1) with all reason and probability.
(a) absolutely.
(b) under the circumstances as (that he should remember the matter in hand, but nothing else at the same distance of time).
(2) with evidence of witnesses of indisputable credit.
(3) with parts of the cae not indispute.
(4) with what he himself has previously said,
(a) on a previous occasion.
(b) in the examination in hand.
(a) in chiefl.
(b) in the prior part of his cross-examination.
(5) with what a witness on the same side has said on the same subject. Now this will show either that the variance is a sign that the whole story is a fiction or that one of the two speaks true and the other false, and that, as it does not appear which speaks tre, it is not sfe tobelieve either, or it should be attempted to cast the discredit on the onewhose evidence is more important.
(6) with his own conduct in the transaction, or the conduct of witnesses of undisputed credit.
(7) with his demeanour in court, as (if he deposes he was calm under provocation) to irritate him.
III. To cause him to give evidence to be received as true.
(a) confirming the evidence of the questioner's witnesses.
(b) contradicting that of the opponent's witnesses.
(c) on a region of facts not previously entered upon; but this topic is more in the nature of examination in chief.
Of these, I. Is the most generally useful. II. (A) may not be resorted to without just grounds of suspicion. The effect of s. 1 of the (English) Criminal Evidence Act, 1898, on questions which may not be put to a person charged with a criminal offence should be noted. The propriety of selecting any of the others must depend upon the view suggested to the moment by the air of the witness and the general complexion of the case. The effect of s. 3 of the (English) Criminal Procedure Act, 1865, should be noted with respect to both civil and criminal mattes. It has been well laid down that the cross-examination of each witness should be made subservient to the general conduct of the case. Consult Powell on Evidence.