Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A. Introduction
Direct examination does not get a fair break in the various art
forms13 that depict the trial. In the courtroom, direct examination is
as important if not more important than cross-examination in
determining the outcome of the trial. There is usually a limit to what
a cross-examiner can accomplish; direct examination, however, can
easily vary from disaster to dynamite. Exactly where direct
examination falls in the disaster-dynamite continuum depends in
part on preparation. Because the direct examiner and witness
usually have an opportunity to prepare the direct examination, the
effectiveness of direct examination depends in large part on the
preparation variable.14 To that extent, the following discussion of
the rules of evidence can be deceptive unless the reader remembers
that the rules elaborated on here must be combined with effective
preparation, a subject beyond the ambit of a course on the rules of
evidence.
As a general rule, direct examination involves placing the witness in
a setting and then having the witness say what the witness
remembers, subject to rules of privilege, relevance and hearsay.
Thus, before getting to the "heart" of any portion of the direct, the
direct examiner asks where the event or conversation occurred,
when it occurred and who was present. None of these must be
asked as a condition to the admission of the evidence. From the
point of view of the jury, however, and its ability to follow the
testimony elicited on direct examination, providing context is
important.15
Again as a general rule, once the setting is fixed, it is helpful to
think of the witness on direct examination as a human video
camera. The witness tries, as best he or she can, to tell the jury
what conversation took place, what happened, or both, again
subject to rules on relevance, hearsay and privilege. If this video
In Perez the AUSA had a choice of asking the physician who gave
Calderon a medical examination after the incident "tell us what you
found when you examined Calderon," the open narrative method of
direct examination, or to pursue the inquiry with specific questions.
The rules of evidence permit either. He decided, however, that the
impact on the jury would be greatest if specific questions were
asked and thus followed that method of direct examination.
Conversely, during the direct examination of Calderon, when the
AUSA came to the actual incident that formed that heart of the
charges, he chose to ask more open-ended questions. These are
both understandable choices and from the point of view of the rules
of evidence, proper choices.19
C. Leading Questions: General Rule
The basic rule of direct examination is that leading questions are not
permitted,20 a rule to which there are numerous exceptions. The
rule and its exceptions can best be understood if the term "leading
question" is defined and if the logic for the general prohibition of
leading questions on direct examination is explained.
A leading question is one that suggests to the witness the answer
the questioner would like. A common misconception is that a
question which can be answered with a "yes" or a "no" is a leading
question. This is not necessarily true. For example, "Are you a
second year law student?" is not leading.
The reason leading questions are generally prohibited on direct
examination is that the law assumes an affinity between the witness
and the direct examiner. Consequently, there is the danger that if
leading questions are permitted, the lawyer will impermissibly speak
for the witness and be able to control what is placed into
evidence.21 While the assumption of affinity might be evident in the
instance of an attorney calling a client, it is not as evident in the
instance of a "disinterested" witness. That assumption, however, is
properly invoked even where the witness is a third party in the
litigation because of the dynamics of witness preparation and the
trial.
questions are permissible, others are not. "Was anything said about
an automobile accident of the day before?" is leading. Everyone in
the courtroom knows the witness is supposed to say yes, including
the witness. Yet it is a proper question. "Did Smith tell you he went
through a red light at the intersection of Broadway and Main earlier
that day?" is also leading but not permitted. It is difficult to
articulate a meaningful rule to delineate the difference between the
permissible and impermissible leading question. One not-too
conceptual way to articulate the difference is to say that when a
leading question is permitted to direct a witness' attention to
subject matter, the question must focus attention on subject matter
but not provide detail on that subject matter. Or, to use slightly
imprecise terminology, the question should lead as little as
possible. 23
3. Exhaustion of recollection: a focused question
Suppose the attorney for the plaintiff learns from a witness that the
defendant told the witness that he went through a red light and he
did so because he was looking at written directions and not paying
attention. Suppose that at the trial, the direct examination of that
witness goes as follows:
Q.I direct your attention to X date, Y time and Z place. Did you
have a conversation with the defendant?
A. Yes.
Q. Was anything said on the subject of an accident?
A. Yes.
Q. What was said?
A. He told me he went through a red light.
Q. Did he tell you anything else?
A. I can't remember.
At this point, we have a choice. One option for the direct examiner
is to go on to something else, thereby losing the desired evidence.
The second option is for a leading question to be permitted. The
rules of evidence opt for the latter: when recollection is shown to
have been exhausted (I can't remember), a leading question may
be asked. Thus, the direct examiner may now ask: "Did the
defendant say why the defendant did not see the red light?" or
perhaps even "Was anything said about directions?" Each of these
questions is leading under the circumstances; each is permissible.
In the Perez case, the prosecution presented its version of what
happened in the underlying cocaine case as part of its case in chief
to show motive. This permitted Perez to present his version. Note
the leading question once his recollection as to the details of his
understanding with Calderon was shown to be exhausted.
4. Exhaustion of recollection: a document
A third option is available to the direct examiner. A document can
also be used, an alternative utilized frequently. In civil litigation,
most witnesses will have been deposed prior to trial; the deposition
provides a ready method of refreshing recollection. In criminal
cases, a signed statement by the witness, grand jury testimony, or
some other statement by the witness, are usually used.
This last statement is deceptive insofar as it implies that only the
prior statement of the witness can be used. The implication is both
not warranted and warranted. An explanation is in order.
Under the rules of evidence, anything can be used to refresh
recollection.24 Thus, for example, if an attorney in an opening
statement advised the jury that witness X would testify as to certain
facts, that opening statement could be used to refresh the witness'
recollection once shown to be exhausted. Nothing in the rules of
evidence would preclude such use of the opening. It would,
however, be very harmful to the direct examiner, if the examiner
had to resort to the opening statement to assist the witness. The
weight of the subsequently refreshed testimony would be virtually
zero. Effectively, the witness would be saying she didn't remember
but because the lawyer said she would say something, she now
recollection was simply a matter of asking him about the phone. The
process of refreshing took a second or two. Suppose Perez had
testified at the earlier trial about the phone. Certainly the transcript
of his earlier trial testimony would have been a legitimate document
to use to refresh his recollection. The process of marking it (which
means walking to the court reporter or clerk to have an exhibit
sticker placed on the document), showing it to Perez (walking to the
witness stand), asking him to identify it, then asking him to read a
selected part, then inquiring whether his recollection is refreshed,
and then, finally, returning to counsel table and eliciting the
refreshed recollection, takes a minimum of a minute or two. Using
that much time to refresh recollection surely accentuates the failure
of recollection. A leading question does not similarly underscore the
failure.
7. The weak witness
Certain witnesses have difficulty in focusing. For example, the
witness could be a young child or an adult of less than normal
intelligence whose mind tends to wander. In such a circumstance,
the court has the power under Rule 611(c) to permit the direct
examiner to conduct the examination using such leading questions
as are necessary. A party calling a witness for these reasons, or any
reason that requires leading, can either raise the issue prior to
calling the witness, or let the scenario develop and then appeal to
the court for assistance. While the former alternative might be
preferable, the court may insist on the latter.
8. Mistake
Witnesses make mistakes, and sometimes are unaware they are
doing so. When this happens, the direct examiner is ordinarily
permitted to rectify the mistake through a leading question. Thus, a
witness might say, "January 8, 1999," and mean "January 9, 1998."
Years in general are a fertile ground for innocent mistakes. A
leading question is permitted so the direct examiner is not burdened
with a demonstrably incorrect answer that is the product of
inadvertence.
9. The hostile witness
The basis for the general rule prohibiting leading questions on direct
examination is the presumed affinity between the witness and the
direct examiner. This factual premise is only that, and it may not be
accurate in all cases. The clearest case where the factual premise
fails is in civil litigation29 when one side calls the other a process
called, aptly enough, adverse examination. An adverse examiner
may, if she wishes, use leading questions to conduct the
examination and ordinarily will want to do so.
There are two other categories of hostile witnesses. First, there are
witnesses who, by virtue of their connection to the litigants, have a
clear identification with one side and therefore will be "adverse" if
called by the other. Family members may be in this category, fired
employees, longtime friends, etc. Ordinarily it is not too difficult to
have such witnesses declared hostile.
The second category of hostile witnesses are those who change
their testimony and testify at trial in a manner contrary to what is
expected. Where the direct examiner is genuinely surprised by the
change, the court will ordinarily declare the witness hostile and
permit inquiry as if on cross-examination. By requiring a showing of
surprise, however, the court penalizes good trial preparation since
the well-prepared lawyer who spoke to the witness before trial
might have been surprised a week before the trial when the witness
changed his story and so is no longer surprised at trial since the
trial testimony is consistent with the changed version of a week
earlier. Nevertheless, some courts require genuine surprise before
declaring a witness hostile.
E. Leading Questions: A Review
The general rule is that leading questions are not permitted on
direct examination. The following are the most conspicuous
exceptions to that general rule:
1. Where facts are not in dispute.
2. Where attention is directed to subject matter.
3. Where recollection is exhausted.
direct examiner asks: "Where did you go after you observed the
accident?" From an extremely technical point of view, the question
assumes a fact since it is premised on the notion that the witness
left the scene. That the witness is still not standing on the street is
obvious to the jury however, and it would be foolish to object to the
question on the ground that it assumes a fact.
G. First-Hand Knowledge
1. Speculation
Rule 602 provides that a witness may not testify to a matter unless
the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. My preference is
to use the term "first-hand" rather than "personal" since all
knowledge a person has in one's head is "personal." However
articulated, the concept is a more formal version of the video
camera principle discussed earlier. If one has acquired knowledge
through the senses, usually the eyes and ears, then one can testify
to that knowledge, subject to rules of relevance, privilege and
hearsay.
Ordinarily, the party wishing to elicit evidence must show that the
witness has first-hand knowledge. Thus:
Q. I want to direct your attention to x date and y time at the
intersection of Broadway and Main Street. Tell us what happened.
Objection: No showing of first-hand knowledge
The Court: Sustained.
The correct way to elicit the evidence would be:
Q. I want to direct your attention to x date and y time. Where were
you then?
A. At the intersection of Broadway and Main Street.
Q. What, if anything did you see?30
A. An accident.