Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1886-08-19
cRoss.ExAmlNArIoT.
How ~ Accomplisheh the Overthrow OF
Evidence Already Before the Jury,


How ~ Aocompiishea the Overthrow Of
bvidsncs Already Before the Jury,
We femofibef 10 hayg read Of a young
lady who; having been subjected as u
Witness TO very Severe ind exhahstive
questioning from tho LAWYERS on both
sides, turned as she was about retiring
and said that she knew II she came to
court that she'd have to be cross-exam-
ined, but she thought that old gentle
man there needn't have been so very
cross about IL, fof all thstl delivering
which parting shot she disappeared
trBul The legal horizon. II would seem
as il there are naRy People Who have a
very vague and confused notldn bt
what oross-examination is, and what Is
It's purpose. Its nature Is indicated by
its name, which "a has received because
Il crosses or traverses the line. Of evil
dence upon the direct examination
Its purpose is not to prove or directly
to disprove any thing, but to shake and
to overthrow evidence already before
the Jury This It accomplishes in vari-
5ds ways By showing that the wit
ness memory Is detective or iuexact;
that his assertions at one time are in
consistent with those that he has made
under oath In the case; that from some
prejudice or q strong self-intcrest his
testimony, although IL might be good
ubon 6thef points, is on the one at
issue not to be trusted; by pntting him
In the light of weak-minded man
who has confused notions Of every
things by showing that his life has been
such that, tipon the subjects as to
which he has been called 10 testify, he
Is what some people call "an unrelia-
bic man" and in general by every
means that may cause the jury TO
doubt his capacity, his vetRcity or his
memory.
But however great the latitude in
other respects; all questions on a cross
examination which hsve 10 do with the
case directly should touch subjects
which were brought up by the direct
examination. In other words, counsel
san not use witness who is giving
eiiGchbe for the other side as II he
were directly testifyihg on their side.
II they were allowed TO do sdi the con.
tinuity of the case on either side wotild
be entirely broken up. The plaintiff
sets out TO put his case before the jury.
The evidence Of each ono Of his wit
hesses, and the connection of their evil
dence, is part of that case. The de-
tehdant may shake any part Of the evil
dence which has been given; may test
it, and probe It in almost every way, so
that its effect may be reduced to an
almost inappreciable remainder, or
may be Destroyed altogether. But ho
can not ask the witness questions which
establish excepting very Indirectly
the defense; because that would be to
make the prosecution and the defense
90 on together, an illogical and unsys-
tematic procedure that would result in
confusion, fatal alike to decorum and
to justice. If one side wishes TO use for
its own purposes a witness produced
by the other, they must do so by maxi
ing him their own witness, by direct
examination in the course of the pre-
sentation Of their case; and then h
will in turn be subject to cross-eXami-
nation by the very counsel by whom
before he could only be questioned di-
rectly; and so IL may go back and forth
through long trial. A direct or re-
direct examination always involves the
right to n cross-cXamination as to the
points brought up in the direct; and a
REORGANIZATION, from its very
nature, and as Is shown by its very
name, can not be without a direct ex-
animation which it crosses. Boston
Budget.