crossexamining

Cross-examining, or cross-examination, is a stage in many adversarial legal systems during which counsel for the opposing party questions a witness who has testified for the other side after that witness's direct examination. The purpose is to test the witness's testimony for accuracy, reliability, and credibility, and to reveal any inconsistencies, bias, or motives that might affect the weight of the evidence.

Cross-examiners often use leading questions, a contrast with the non-leading questions typically used on direct examination. Techniques include presenting prior inconsistent statements, highlighting contradictions, drawing attention to memory gaps, exposing bias or interest, and offering alternative interpretations of events. The aim is not to persuade by emotional appeal but to challenge the witness's account and illuminate weaknesses in their testimony.

Procedural rules govern cross-examination. It must stay within the scope of the witness's direct testimony and be relevant to issues in the case. Objections may limit questions that are argumentative, overly harassing, or privileged. In many jurisdictions the rules of evidence also regulate admissible topics, such as prior criminal convictions or confidential communications, and the use of prior statements for impeachment.

In practice, cross-examination can influence the trier of fact by shaping perceptions of credibility and can be pivotal in both civil and criminal trials. The approach varies by jurisdiction; in common-law systems cross-examination is central and often extensive, while civil-law systems may employ more restrained questioning. Overall, it remains a core tool of the adversarial process intended to test evidence rather than to introduce new substantive facts.