cross-examination questions

• State v. Walker, (Ohio 2011)

SUFFICIENCY; MANIFEST WEIGHT; FAIR TRIAL; PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT; COMMENTS ON DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO TESTIFY; IMPROPER QUESTIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Testimony

Andrew Thomas' attorney hammered Maricopa County Supervisor Don Stapley in cross examination today about the finer details of his battles with the former County Attorney. And Stapley, who earlier in his had been self-assured and outraged when questioned by a State Bar attorney, repeatedly told defense attorney Brian Holohan on cross examination he didn't understand his questions.

• Arizona Capitol Times
• September 27, 2011

• State v. Tilley, (Ohio 2012)

Prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct by making insinuations on cross-examination that were not supported by the evidence. The prosecutor’s questions were improper and wrongfully impugned the credibility of the defense witness, thereby depriving defendant a fair trial.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• D.C. Sniper Questions Young Partner's Insanity Plea ; Cross-Examination in Second Murder Trial Includes Heated Exchanges

ROCKVILLE, Md. In an often testy four-hour cross-examination, John Allen Muhammad questioned the mental health and memory of his one-time sniper protg Lee Boyd Malvo and repeatedly referred to him as "son. I would prefer you address me by my name," Malvo shot back at one point, drawing an apology from the defendant.

• The Record, Bergen County, NJ
• May 25, 2006

• Legal Ethics of 'Coaching' Witnesses: How Far Can You Go?

BOSTON - It is clear that Daniel Petrocelli, the highly skilled lawyer for Jeffrey Skilling, one of the Enron defendants, thoroughly prepared his client before he took the stand to testify in his own defense. Undoubtedly, he showed Skilling copies of documents, investigative reports, prior statements, and other witnesses' statements and testimony, and advised him about choice of language he might use when answering questions on direct or cross- examination.

• St. Charles County Business Record
• September 30, 2006

• State v. Simmons, (Ohio 2011)

Defendant’s conviction for patient abuse is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence; a surveillance videotape depicting Defendant’s assault on a patient was not inadmissible for lack of authentication, because the parties stipulated to its authenticity; ineffective assistance of counsel is not demonstrated; other act evidence was not introduced, when the witness asked about the evidence denied its existence; trial court did not abuse its discretion when it barred Defendant from propounding questions on cross examination to impugn the testifying witness’s character, which counsel lacked a good faith basis to propound. Affirmed.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Judge's Ruling Orders Gates to Testify in Antitrust Suit

DES MOINES, Iowa -- A district court judge in Iowa has ordered Microsoft Corp. Chairman Bill Gates and CEO Steve Ballmer to testify in person at a trial that starts in Iowa later this month. The two executives already were on the witness list to appear at the trial, but the ruling means they'll likely travel to Iowa earlier in the trial to face direct questioning by the plaintiffs' attorney. Without the ruling, they may have appeared later to answer cross-examination questions by the plaintiffs.

• Deseret News (Salt Lake City)
• November 06, 2006

• State v. Darkenwald, (Ohio 2004)

Evid.R. 607, Evid R. 611, Evid R. 613, adverse witness, hostile witness, cross-examination, leading questions, impeachment, written statements, Crim.R. 33, ineffective assistance of counsel, motion for new trial, Ohio Jury Instructions, deadly force, self-defense, new evidence.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Condit Testifies in Levy Murder Trial -- Ex-Lawmaker Says He Wasn't Involved

WASHINGTON - Former Rep. Gary Condit, D-Calif., told jurors Monday that he didn't murder Chandra Levy and insisted he cooperated fully with police when they investigated the Washington intern's disappearance nearly a decade ago. But he continued to evade questions on cross-examination about whether he had an intimate relationship with Levy, saying "we're all entitled to some level of privacy.

• The Commercial Appeal (2007-Current)
• November 02, 2010

• Law Digest

COURT OF APPEALS Civil Procedure, Entitlement to new trial: Goldberg, et al. v. Boone, CA No. 21, September Term, 2006 Although line of cross- examination questions about the D.C. sniper case was improper, its prejudicial effects did not transcend the trial judge's curative measures so as to warrant a new trial. RecordFax 06-1206-20, 42 pages.

• The Daily Record (Baltimore)
• January 04, 2007