VIEW TREE
ICON KEY
3887:false:false:false:false:false:false:false:false:false:!:false:-1:-1
The phase of witness interrogation that follows the direct examination is cross-examination.
Add Comment
Contributed in 2009 & last edited in 2009 by Peter Tillers
Browse from Jury instructions
Law
»
Courts
»
Evidence
»
The nature of proof
»
Proof as temporal process
»
Proof at trial has a temporal dimension
»
Proof procedure at trial
»
General structure
»
Witness interrogation
»
Phases of interrogation
»
Cross-examination comes second: The phase of witness...
Narrow Down
Contribution Suggestions
vouch for authority for rule...
Other crimes, wrongs, or acts are admissible and do not violate the prohibition against the use of character to show conduct if such acts are...United States v. Beckman, 298 F.3d 788, 793-794 (9th Cir. 2002) (upholding trial court's admission of witness's testimony about accused's prior drug runs because it provided a "coherent and comprehensible story" which was "inextricably intertwined" with the charged offenses ).
in support of
Other crimes, wrongs, or acts are admissible and do not violate the prohibition against the use of character to show conduct if such acts are admissible to show the context of an event at issue at trial or to tell the full story or an intelligible story of a series of events at issue at trial.vouch for authority for rule...
A prior statement is exempt from the federal hearsay rule and is admissible to prove the truth of the matter asserted by the declarant with the...United States v. Butterworth, 511 F.3d 71, 74-75 (1st Cir. 2007) (upholding trial court's admission of grand jury testimony of defendant's girlfriend to cross-examine her after she gave testimony that was inconsistent with....
in support of
A prior statement is exempt from the federal hearsay rule and is admissible to prove the truth of the matter asserted by the declarant with the prior statement if the prior statement was made under oath in another proceeding and if the prior statement is inconsistent with the declararant's testimony or with the admitted hearsay statement of the declarant.
complete authority for rule...
The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination confers on a criminal defendant the right to give relevant testimony.Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, pin? (1987) (held, a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to testify to relevant exculpatory evidence; various federal constitutional rights -- including the....
in support of
The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination confers on a criminal defendant the right to give relevant testimony.