Litigation
Cal. Litig. 2016, VOLUME 29, NUMBER 3
Content
- Adr Update: Failure to Pay Arbitrator's Fees
- Coming Together: the California Supreme Court 2015-2016
- Editor's Foreword a Move From the Silver Linings Playbook
- From the Section Chair the State Bar's Public Protection Mission—Protecting the Public from What?
- Goodbye to All That
- Litigation Section Executive Committee Past Chairs
- Masthead
- Past Editors-in-Chief
- Table of Contents
- The Court Bond Process: a Litigator's Guide on How to Explain Court Bonds to Your Clients
- The Politics of Arbitration
- Trial Lawyer Hall of Famer
- Direct and Cross-Examination
Direct and Cross-Examination
By e. robert (bob) wallach and Brian J. McCormack
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Cross-examination gets all the glory. Watching Perry Mason and L.A. Law, viewers see the hero annihilate a witness on cross. And lawyers love to share war stories about how they destroyed a witness on cross. But cases are usually won by presenting the evidence in your case in chief, i.e., cases are won as a result of direct examination. It’s on direct examination that you present the substance of your case: your client’s version of disputed facts and your key evidence (your documents, writings, and demonstrative exhibits).
But there is an important corollary: Jurors evaluate a witness’s credibility on direct exam based on their composite view of the witness’s performance under cross-examination. Judgment is suspended until the witness goes through the crucible. Jurors expect a witness to do well on direct. Direct examination is pivotal to credibility. The likelihood of being believed on cross-examination begins with the belief in the witness on direct exam. The circle is closed when the jurors — now satisfied that the witness has withstood the rigors of cross-examination — conclude the witness is credible, with the groundwork having been laid on direct exam. The witness favored is the witness the jurors want to succeed.