direct examination questions

• State v. Burnham, (Ohio 2010)

Assault; sufficiency; manifest weight; plain error; hearsay; leading questions on direct and redirect examination.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• State v. Laveck, (Ohio 2004)

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Evid.R. 611(C), leading questions on direct examination; ineffective assistance; sufficiency of the evidence.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• 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. Irwin, (Ohio 2009)

appellant convicted of murder; motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence; record did not demonstrate that appellant was shackled in jury’s view; trial court did not err in limiting voir dire; trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling appellant’s juror challenges for cause; exclusion of unauthenticated letters was not an abuse of discretion; no evidence demonstrating that jury saw un-admitted exhibit; polygraph evidence should not have been considered; evidence that another man confessed to the murder presented at new trial hearing; motions to continue trial and new trial hearing denied; no right to be present at new trial hearing; leading questions used on direct examination; no evidence of trial court bias; allegations of prosecutorial misconduc...

• Ohio Supreme Court

• An in-Depth Look at Direct Examination of Expert Witnesses[Dagger]

The Honorable Ralph Adam Fine describes a trial as a battle for your client while the jurors are those whom you must persuade and he describes direct examination as a great engine to get at the truth. This article attempts to untangle how an expert can effectively assist the jury to either understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue. First, the article highlights the expert witness generally by looking at the need for expert testimony and ways to engage a competent expert. Next, the article focuses on managing expert witnesses. Third, the article explores preparing the expert witness by reviewing of testimony, demonstrative exhibits, and ways to frame questions prior to trial. Fourth and finally, this article emphasizes a four-step process to use in the direct examination of wi...

• FDCC Quarterly
• Vol. 60 Nbr. 2, January 2010

• State v. Fair, (Ohio 2008)

Aggravated robbery; ineffective assistance of counsel; motion to suppress identification testimony; leading questions on direct examination; cold stand; show-ups; Neil v. Biggers; impermissibly suggestive; inconsistent verdicts; Browning v. State; sufficiency of evidence; manifest weight; R.C. 2911.01; R.C. 2933.13; presumptive minimum sentence; S/O v. Foster.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• 29 CFR 18.611 - Mode and order of interrogation and presentation.

...(b) Scope of cross-examination. Cross-examination should be limited to the subjecct matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility ...(c) Leading questions. Leading questions should not be used on the direc...

• Code of Federal Regulations - Title 29: Labor

• In re B.F., (Ohio 2005)

Ineffective assistance of counsel - Leading questions on direct examination.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• State v. Benson, (Ohio 2002)

DRUNK DRIVING - admission of evidence; National Highway Traffic Safety Administration standards; strict compliance. EVIDENCE - authentication. EVIDENCE - leading questions; direct examination; Evid.R. 611(C). CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - failure to use turn signal; probable cause.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• State v. Garrett, (Ohio 2010)

PROCEDURE/RULES – EVIDENCE – PROSECUTOR – R.C. 2941.25: The trial court’s failure to grant the defendant’s motion to sever the charges involving three separate victims did not prejudice the defendant, where the evidence of each charge was direct and uncomplicated, where each charge was presented chronologically by the respective victims, and where the defendant was ultimately acquitted of the charges relating to one of the victims. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the state to make references to and to admit testimony about the CODIS database, when the defendant’s argument that the testimony amounted to impermissible “other acts” evidence was purely speculative, when the state did not produce any evidenc...

... engaged in misconduct by asking leading questions of the state's witnesses and by eliciting expert t... leading questions during his direct examination of the state's witnesses. While we agree that the...

• Ohio Supreme Court