LawCrossing has more jobs and it is more tailored. It's pretty amazing what they'll pull and how gullible they think the average juror is. You can complete the definition of hostile given by the English Definition dictionary with other English dictionaries: Wikipedia, Lexilogos, Oxford, Cambridge, Chambers Harrap, Wordreference, Collins Lexibase dictionaries, Merriam Webster. Normally, the party that calls you as a witness does so in the belief that you will provide the court with evidence similar to the account you provided earlier in a pre-trial statement. This means that, just because the witness is providing unhelpful or unfavorable evidence, it does not mean he is doing so in an effort to be vindictive. Soli Sorabjee, the former Attorney General has rightly said, Nothing shakes public confidence in the criminal justice delivery system more then the collapse of the prosecution owing to witnesses turning hostile and retracting their previous statements.
In systems of proof based on the English common law tradition, almost all evidence must be sponsored by a witness, who has sworn or solemnly affirmed to tell the truth. This allows the attorney to cross examine the witness. A judge will grant such permission if the witness is not answering questions properly, being evasive or otherwise difficult. I will always recommend this site! Certain witnesses are assumed to be 'hostile' and therefore it isn't necessary to ask for permission to ask leading questions. When you are calling your own witness that is determined to be hostile you may do certain things such as ask leading questions 'Weren't you there on that night' instead of 'Where were you on this night'. If the request is granted, the attorney may proceed to ask the witness.
When an attorney suspects a witness of being hostile, he makes an application to the judge, absent the jury, asking the judge to treat the witness as hostile. The statement of the witness duly recorded before a Magistrate under oath would be treated as evidence at the court's discretion. The V S Malimath committee on reforms of the criminal justice system prepared an outline for such a wide-ranging correction in 2003. But it is difficult to accept that what they perceive as harassment from the long trial and the way they are treated in court can make them hostile. A witness on cross examination is presumed to be hostile, so the lawyer does not need to seek the court's permission to treat the witness as hostile.
Today all persons are presumed to be qualified to serve as witnesses in trials and other legal proceedings, and all persons are also presumed to have a legal obligation to serve as witnesses if their testimony is sought. We cannot consider you a client until such time as we have consulted with you, and met with you personally. Besides, there may be similar situations in the future. State of Rajasthan has observed that the purpose of administering the oath to a witness is to bring home the solemnity of the occasion and to impress upon him the duty of speaking the truth. Leading questions usually are only asked during cross examination.
It can demolish the most painstakingly constructed of cases, it can waste the time of courts, and it can allow criminals to walk free, making a mockery of the investigative process. In those times, a court may grant latitude to use leading questions because the attorney's own witness is not much different from that of opposing counsel. A leading question is a question that implies the answer and usually involves a yes or no question. The pervasiveness of the problem is being witnessed in various countries in Europe, Scotland, America, etc. For that witnesses are required, whether it is direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. What is a Hostile Witness A hostile witness is someone who appears to be refusing to tell the truth in a court of law — or one who, by his actions or statements, is contrary to the party who called him. I did tell the police that.
Generally, a witness must ask open-ended questions when examining their own witnesses and can only cross-examine i. If an attorney goes that route, they risk losing the jury for their side, so it's not without hazards. When the lawyer asks the court to treat the witness as hostile, the lawyer is asking permission to lead the witness to make specific points from a witness that normally does not want those points made. If you are on the other side, they you should always object to leading questions, and object to the witness being declared hostile. All that the law seeks to do is elicit hidden facts from the witnesses for the sole purpose of determining the truth.
The supreme court in explaining the situation had opined in Chandra Pal Singh v. Here if the judge acts as per section 165 of evidence act then there may be a situation when the witness may be cross examined by the judge himself so that he may not be influenced by the adverse party. There is also a need felt of admitting new forms of evidence such as the digital evidence, as envisaged by the federal rules of evidence, to meet the ever changing needs of the judiciary. For example, these types of questions might start with 'Isn't it true you. But, what is important is the competency of the authority before which the statement is made to administer the same.
Normally, all witnesses called by the opposing party are presumed hostile. Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop the witness? It is indeed one of the most important factors responsible for so many acquittals in criminal cases. There is a need to take steps to stop harassment of the witness, so that he does not feel frustrated. Attorney's usually have an unfettered right to ask leading questions on cross-examination, so if the plaintiff's lawyer calls the defendant as a witness, when the defendant's attorney is cross examining her at that time, the defendant's attorney may automatically subject to each state's rules use leading questions. He, however, accepted that hostile witness and inordinate delay in trial came in the way of law.
The oath or affirmation is to the effect that the witness will speak the truth, whole truth and nothing but truth. This was so that Clark proceed with leading questions that are usually reserved for cross-examination. So, a lawyer should ask his own witness open ended questions such as who, what, where, when, why, and how. And yet there are times when the attorney's own witness is evasive or prone to be hostile by virtue of the circumstances of the case. If, however, he continues to deny a contradiction, then his statement is read into evidence.