Cross-examining

Cross-examining refers to the formal questioning of a witness who has testified on behalf of the opposing party in a legal proceeding. Its primary purpose is to challenge or discredit the witness's testimony, reveal inconsistencies, elicit new information, or expose bias. The process involves asking questions intended to clarify, contradict, or test the accuracy and reliability of the witness's previous statements. Effective cross-examination often employs leading questions, which subtly suggest the desired answer. It's a critical tool for ensuring a fair trial and truth-seeking by providing an opportunity to challenge potentially misleading or incomplete information.

Cross-examining meaning with examples

• The defense attorney began cross-examining the prosecution's key witness, carefully scrutinizing every detail of their statement. She asked a series of pointed questions, hoping to reveal inconsistencies and plant seeds of doubt in the jury's mind. Her goal was to undermine the witness's credibility and create reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt.
• After the plaintiff finished their testimony, the lawyer for the defendant proceeded to cross-examining them. He used a combination of aggressive questioning and subtle suggestions to expose contradictions and highlight potential biases. The objective was to portray the plaintiff's account as unreliable and diminish the impact of their testimony on the jury.
• During the trial, the judge allowed a recess before the defense started cross-examining the expert witness. This allowed the legal team a moment to review their notes, gather their thoughts, and develop the best strategy to challenge his statements. The lawyers planned a targeted attack to weaken the witness's arguments and discredit the scientific methods they'd employed.
• The courtroom was tense as the prosecutor began cross-examining the defendant, focusing on their alibi. He pressed him for details, hoping to uncover a lie. The questions were fast and hard. His intention was to create doubt about the validity of their story, by showing it contained contradictions with the evidence presented so far in the trial.