Opinion ID: 482811
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Recross-examination of John Krear

Text: 21 On direct examination, John Krear testified with respect to Krear's anticipated profits on the Contracts and described the employment contracts he and Weiner had with Krear. The Trustees cross-examined John Krear with respect to Krear's prospects but not with respect to the employment contracts. Following the close of John Krear's redirect examination, which did not include questions regarding the employment contracts, those contracts were received in evidence. When the Trustees conducted recross-examination they attempted to question John Krear with respect to the validity and authenticity of those agreements. The district court sustained objections to these questions on the grounds that they were not within the parameters of redirect. The Trustees contend that this ruling was error. We disagree. 22 Fed.R.Evid. 611(b) provides that [c]ross-examination should be limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness; it gives the trial court discretion to permit additional latitude in cross-examination. Thus, the proper scope for cross-questioning is, like the qualification of witnesses, a matter of trial court discretion which we do not lightly disturb. N.V. Maatschappij Voor Industriele Waarden v. A.O. Smith Corp., 590 F.2d 415, 421 (2d Cir.1978). This deferential standard of review is equally applicable to recross-examination. See United States v. Kahn, 472 F.2d 272, 281 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 982, 93 S.Ct. 2270, 36 L.Ed.2d 958 (1973). 23 Since the redirect examination of John Krear did not include questioning with respect to the employment agreements, it was plainly not error for the district court to exclude the Trustees' recross-examination questions on that subject.