Examination in cheif. Examination in chief 2022-12-13
Examination in cheif Rating:
4,5/10
682
reviews
Examination in chief is a legal term used in the context of a trial or legal proceeding. It refers to the questioning of a witness by the lawyer representing the party that called the witness to testify. The purpose of examination in chief is to establish the witness's credibility and to elicit testimony that supports the position of the party calling the witness.
During examination in chief, the lawyer asking the questions will typically guide the witness through a series of questions designed to establish the witness's credibility and to elicit testimony that supports the case of the party calling the witness. The lawyer may ask the witness to describe their background and qualifications, to provide details about the events in question, and to explain their observations and actions. The lawyer may also ask the witness to provide supporting documents or other evidence to bolster the witness's testimony.
Examination in chief is an important part of the legal process, as it allows the party calling the witness to present their case to the court or tribunal and to establish the facts of the case. It is also an opportunity for the witness to explain their side of the story and to provide context and details that may not be apparent from the documents or other evidence presented in the case.
After the examination in chief is complete, the opposing party will have the opportunity to cross-examine the witness. During cross-examination, the opposing lawyer will attempt to challenge the witness's credibility and to undermine the testimony given during examination in chief. The opposing lawyer may ask leading or antagonistic questions, and may use a variety of tactics to try to discredit the witness or to present a different version of events.
Overall, examination in chief is an essential part of the legal process, and it plays a crucial role in establishing the facts and determining the outcome of a case. It allows the parties involved to present their cases to the court or tribunal and to challenge the testimony and evidence of the opposing side.
Examinations
Examination in Chief is the first examination after the witness has been sworn or affirmed. Courts will normally disallow leading questions especially where the adverse party has no legal representation. But in the entire scenario, what seems to be missing is the sense of justice involved. Chief examination is sophisticated advocacy because during its course counsel is actually presenting their case, while trying to satisfy a multitude of objectives, such as maximizing the potential of each witness to present all relevant evidence in as logical, credible, persuasive and accurate manner as possible, while knitting all witnesses' evidence together in a coherent fashion in order to prove all the elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. Stretch the important parts. Conversely, use the arguments that you want to make at the end of the case to guide you in planning and preparing the questions you will ask on examination in chief. When questioning your witnesses consider using points of reference to add variety to your questioning and to move the witness along from one episode to the next.
Examination in Chief is one of the most subtle and sophisticated forms of advocacy. The weight given to an answer from a leading question will depend on "how leading the question was, the subject matter and other evidence before the Court. Examination in Chief The Examination of a witness by a party who calls him shall be called his examination in Chief. Evidence out of leading questions is inadmissible in court and also leads to less probative value in the case. Probably our country is not accustomed to the inquisitorial system.
The evidence should appear to be flowing effortlessly from the witness. Have your foundations ready. London: Butterworths 1967 p. Examples of leading questions include: 1. But at the same time, with the development of the alternative dispute resolution system like mediation, arbitration and negotiation, there can be things which can be incorporated in this system of rigorous truth finding mechanism.
He has given several guidelines which a lawyer can follow for a worthwhile examination in Chief. Examination in Chief is the keystone in the prosecution's arch. In the adversarial system of our country, it becomes a tool of extracting truth from the facts. Major Objectives a the evidence must be admissible; b the witness needs to present as persuasive and credible; c each and every element of the offence must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt through the witnesses oral evidence and exhibits. There are Golden Rules given by David Paul Brown for the Examination of witnesses: These golden rules alert the lawyer to ask questions according to the type of their witnesses. By definition, examination-in-chief simply refers to the questioning of a witness by the party who calls or brings the witness to court. Casey Hill, David M.
Minor Objectives In addition, you are also trying to achieve the following slightly less essential, but still important, objectives: 1 present a logical, complete and coherent theory of the offence 2 present each witness in the best possible light; 3 use the evidence of one witness to support another so that a seamless cloth may be woven of the proven fact; 4 fill in gaps in the evidence and attempt to explain any inconsistencies; 5 shut down potential cross-examination thereby limiting the exposure of witnesses. The entire process must look impressive and spontaneous to some extent. Examination in Chief is also known as Direct Examination. Moreover since already discussed earlier examination in chief requires a lot of skill, hard work and art. The cookies store information anonymously and assign a randomly generated number to identify unique visitors. The Form of the Question.
There must be a repetition of things which are necessary. A hostile witness can be as unpredictable as a wild mustang stallion. Therefore, the general rule is that a witness may not be asked leading questions and the adverse party must object. This is surprising because cases are actually won or lost on the fruits of direct examination. Whereas the witness should be memorable, the lawyer should not.
Examination in chief legal definition of examination in chief
Unlike cross-examination, there is very little written material to guide practitioners through the examination of their own witnesses. Think of direct examination as your opportunity to construct persuasive arguments. Chief examination is sophisticated advocacy because during its course counsel is actually presenting their case, while trying to satisfy a multitude of objectives, such as maximizing the potential of each witness to present all relevant evidence in as logical, credible, persuasive and accurate manner as possible, while knitting all witnesses' evidence together in a coherent fashion in order to prove all the elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. The things which are important should continue for a long time. The non-expert witness must speak from personal knowledge.
Turning over responsibility to the client may seem unnatural, and is always uncomfortable, but it is the best way to accomplish the goals of examination in chief, and the ultimate goal of winning the case for your client. Mirror some of the good characteristics of the witness. They help in giving a vivid description of the issue. If after reading their previous statement the witness still cannot recall the facts then you cannot assist your witness by putting leading questions or prompting them. This sounds easy, but requires a lot of work, research and preparation. The answer must be upon a point of fact as opposed to point of law. Be prepared to authenticate and lay foundations for any exhibits that are going to be introduced to the witnesses.
Deflate the potential cross-examination. Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act defines the term Examination in Chief. Open and Closed Questions You can ask your witnesses a variety of open and closed questions. Compound questions invite objections. As a general rule when you ask your witness questions you should phrase your questions using simple words and phrases to ensure the witness fully understands what you are asking them. It is also important to the defender who will call witnesses in support of the defensive theory. How far does the adversarial type of litigation helps the purpose is still something to be ascertained.
Minor Objectives In addition, you are also trying to achieve the following slightly less essential, but still important, objectives: 1 present a logical, complete and coherent theory of the offence; 2 present each witness in the best possible light; 3 use the evidence of one witness to support another so that a seamless cloth may be woven of the proven fact; 4 fill in gaps in the evidence and attempt to explain any inconsistencies; 5 shut down potential cross-examination thereby limiting the exposure of witnesses. Relevant evidence is evidence that has some any tendency; however slight, to make the existence of a fact of consequence to the case more or less probable than it would be without it. The goal should be smooth introduction of your tangible exhibits and a persuasive "tell and show" as you use the exhibits to add to the issue concerned. A hostile witness can be as unpredictable as a wild mustang stallion. The Use of Documents to Refresh Recollection.
