Opinion ID: 2295861
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Alleged Indulgence of the Prosecution to Ask Leading, Repetitious, and Other Improper Questions

Text: Appellants cite a number of instances where the court allegedly was at fault in permitting the prosecution to ask improper questions. There is no merit to this assertion. It is true that the court did permit a number of leading questions on direct examination, but most of these occurred during the first few minutes of a witness's testimony and served to expedite the trial, without prejudice to appellants, by generally focusing the witness's attention on the time and place of certain events. [93] Contrary to appellants' assertions, it is not true that the trial court permitted inflammatory testimony by government witnesses. For example, when appellants objected to a witness's use of the term hostage, the court initially prohibited its use. After several days of testimony, however, when several witnesses had established that in fact they had been held hostage, the court relaxed the prohibition, for it no longer could be deemed prejudicial. [94] It is fair to say, in summary, that the court generally was careful to limit all the witnesses to their direct observations, cutting them off if they started to use inflammatory words or give their impressions about how appellants or other hostages felt. It is also fair to characterize a number of the allegations here as frivolous. For example, on some occasions, rather than permitting improper questioning by the prosecution, the court was merely ruling on a legal point, [95] allowing a proper, not a repetitious, question, [96] or permitting leading or otherwise proper questions on cross-examination of Khaalis by the prosecution. [97] In two other instances, appellants have misread the record, as the court partially sustained the defense objection. [98]