Oral evidence refers to verbal testimony given by witnesses in court under oath. It involves three types of witness examination: examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination. Examination-in-chief is conducted by the party who calls the witness to elicit direct evidence. Cross-examination is then carried out by the opposing party to challenge the testimony. Finally, re-examination is conducted by the party who called the witness originally to clarify issues raised during cross-examination. The examinations follow specific rules regarding the types of questions permitted at each stage and their purpose.
LLB LAW NOTES ON LAW OF EVIDENCE
FREE AFFIDAVITS AND NOTICES FORMATS
FREE AGREEMENTS AND CONTRACTS FORMATS
FREE LLB LAW NOTES
FREE CA ICWA NOTES
FREE LLB LAW FIRST SEM NOTES
FREE LLB LAW SECOND SEM NOTES
FREE LLB LAW THIRD SEM NOTES
FREE LLB LAW FOURTH SEM NOTES
FREE LLB LAW FIFTH SEM NOTES
FREE LLB LAW SIXTH SEM NOTES
FREE CA ICWA FOUNDATION NOTES
FREE CA ICWA INTERMEDIATE NOTES
FREE CA ICWA FINAL NOTES
KANOON KE RAKHWALE INDIA
HIRE LAWYER ONLINE
LAW FIRMS IN DELHI
CA FIRM DELHI
VISIT : https://www.kanoonkerakhwale.com/
VISIT : https://hirelawyeronline.com/
LLB LAW NOTES ON LAW OF EVIDENCE
FREE AFFIDAVITS AND NOTICES FORMATS
FREE AGREEMENTS AND CONTRACTS FORMATS
FREE LLB LAW NOTES
FREE CA ICWA NOTES
FREE LLB LAW FIRST SEM NOTES
FREE LLB LAW SECOND SEM NOTES
FREE LLB LAW THIRD SEM NOTES
FREE LLB LAW FOURTH SEM NOTES
FREE LLB LAW FIFTH SEM NOTES
FREE LLB LAW SIXTH SEM NOTES
FREE CA ICWA FOUNDATION NOTES
FREE CA ICWA INTERMEDIATE NOTES
FREE CA ICWA FINAL NOTES
KANOON KE RAKHWALE INDIA
HIRE LAWYER ONLINE
LAW FIRMS IN DELHI
CA FIRM DELHI
VISIT : https://www.kanoonkerakhwale.com/
VISIT : https://hirelawyeronline.com/
Be prepared and gain a deeper understanding of Arizona civil lawsuits with this simple to understand guide. An in depth explanation of civil lawsuits in Arizona, including the stages of a lawsuit, and common terminology.
Chapter 21 - The Investigator and the Legal System1.docxwalterl4
Chapter 21 - The Investigator and the Legal System
1
The decisions investigators must make involve a great deal of discretion.
Investigators must consider what may be termed risk factors.
2
Investigators must consider what may be termed risk factors.
Some police officers and criminal investigators are not fully aware of the order in
3
which a trial is conducted because time often prohibits them from attending a
complete trail from beginning to end. Also, witnesses are often sequestered from
the courtroom before and after giving testimony. This very common practice is used
to minimize the possibility that a witness’s testimony might be affected by other
witnesses’ testimony.
The courtroom process begins with the selection and swearing in of a jury. Jury
selection can last a few hours or a few weeks, depending on the selection process
and the nature of the case. The jury panel from whom the jurors in the trial will
eventually be picked is called a venire.
The steps in the trial process include: direct examination, cross-examination,
redirect examination, re-cross examination, the rebuttal, surrebuttal, and closing
arguments.
Evidence can be defined as anything that tends logically to prove or disprove
a fact at issue in a judicial case or controversy.
4
a fact at issue in a judicial case or controversy.
The rules of evidence are designed primarily to keep a jury from hearing or
seeing improper evidence, and the first rule of evidence is designed to set
parameters on the above definition of evidence.
Proof may be defined as the combination of all those facts—of all the evidence—in
5
determining the guilt or innocence of a person accused of a crime.
The pie chart above illustrates how several different pieces of evidence can
be put together in order to constitute proof of guilt.
6
be put together in order to constitute proof of guilt.
The doctrine of judicial notice is an evidentiary shortcut. Judicial notice is designed
7
to speed up the trial and eliminate the necessity of formally proving the truth of a
particular matter when the truth is not in dispute.
Direct Evidence
8
Direct evidence usually is the testimony of witnesses that ties the defendant
directly to the commission of the crime, such as the testimony of an
eyewitness who can positively state that the defendant committed the crime.
Real Evidence
Sometimes referred to as “physical evidence,” real evidence is connected
with the commission of the crime and can be produced in court.
Demonstrative Evidence
Demonstrative, or illustrative, evidence is not identical to real evidence even
though the items introduced are tangible. It consists of maps, diagrams,
sketches, photographs, tape recordings, videotapes, X-rays, and visual tests
and demonstrations produced to assist witnesses in explaining their
testimony.
Circumstantial Evidence
9
It is a myth that one cannot be convicted of a crime solely o.
How to testify EffectivelyChapter 15By Tiffany HoustonMay.docxwellesleyterresa
How to testify Effectively
Chapter 15
By: Tiffany Houston
May 7, 2016
Objectives
Name the different methods used to notify a law enforcement professional to appear in court
Describe the appropriate clothing for law enforcement professionals to wear in court
Identify those people to whom the law enforcement professional should not speak to during recesses
Explain what a law enforcement professional should do while testifying with respect to objections
State what a law enforcement professional should do when he or she does not remember the answer to a question asked
Explain what a law enforcement professional should do when asked an argumentative question on cross-examination that the defense attorney insists should be answered yes or no.
The law enforcement professional Role
Law Enforcement plays a important role in the prosecution process:
Interview witnesses,
preserve the crime scene,
collect physical evidence,
Due to the level of interaction Law Enforcement plays, they also will be requested to appear in court to testify. Like any witness, they also maybe reluctant in the testimonial process.
The key to testifying is simple: Testify truthfully.
Notification to appear
Notification to appear:
Supoena- A court order demanding the presence of the person in court as a witness
On-call- A direction in a subpoena that states the law enforcement official is not needed to appear personally in court unless called by the prosecutor. This requires that the law enforcement official remains nearby and readily available for a court appearance.
Phone call- The prosecutor may merely just call the law enforcement official advising him or her that their presence in needed in court as a witness.
What to do before the trial
A. The law enforcement official must provide all information to the prosecutor, even if it is a weakness or problem with the case: Search warrant, arrest, collection and analysis of evidence, interrogation of the defendant.
The law enforcement official must refamiliarize themselves with the facts of the case, and speak with prosecution what they are expected to testify about. In return, discuss the case with the superior officer and partner to get a second eye on how to present the facts and physical evidence.
If an expert professional is testifying, they must be qualified expert, ensure they have all evidence available for court, and prepare it for proper presentation.
What to wear in Court
Wear to court what you wear to work is how most law enforcement official think. (shined shoes, clean and pressed uniform, no bulge from pencils notebooks, or anything that can distract the testimony.)
If a uniform it not worn, business attire is the Norm for court. (solid-color dress shirt, modest tie, with a matching coat jakect, business suit conservative blouse and dress slacks or skirt.)
Some who are off duty uniformed officers will wear business attire-only if they are traveling to court in their personal vehicles.
Prosecution pref ...
CHARLES DYER'S NOT GUILTY VERDICT FOR THE FEDERAL WEAPONS CHARGE! Deborah Swan
Charles Dyer was set up by a member of the ARM , American Resistance Movement, by giving him what appeared to be a grenade launcher. This type of weapon is legal for Charles to won do o his firearm military training. This is the case documents of his federal charge of having a stolen military weapon in his possession. Charles demanded a jury trial. The jury found Charles not guilty!
Be prepared and gain a deeper understanding of Arizona civil lawsuits with this simple to understand guide. An in depth explanation of civil lawsuits in Arizona, including the stages of a lawsuit, and common terminology.
Chapter 21 - The Investigator and the Legal System1.docxwalterl4
Chapter 21 - The Investigator and the Legal System
1
The decisions investigators must make involve a great deal of discretion.
Investigators must consider what may be termed risk factors.
2
Investigators must consider what may be termed risk factors.
Some police officers and criminal investigators are not fully aware of the order in
3
which a trial is conducted because time often prohibits them from attending a
complete trail from beginning to end. Also, witnesses are often sequestered from
the courtroom before and after giving testimony. This very common practice is used
to minimize the possibility that a witness’s testimony might be affected by other
witnesses’ testimony.
The courtroom process begins with the selection and swearing in of a jury. Jury
selection can last a few hours or a few weeks, depending on the selection process
and the nature of the case. The jury panel from whom the jurors in the trial will
eventually be picked is called a venire.
The steps in the trial process include: direct examination, cross-examination,
redirect examination, re-cross examination, the rebuttal, surrebuttal, and closing
arguments.
Evidence can be defined as anything that tends logically to prove or disprove
a fact at issue in a judicial case or controversy.
4
a fact at issue in a judicial case or controversy.
The rules of evidence are designed primarily to keep a jury from hearing or
seeing improper evidence, and the first rule of evidence is designed to set
parameters on the above definition of evidence.
Proof may be defined as the combination of all those facts—of all the evidence—in
5
determining the guilt or innocence of a person accused of a crime.
The pie chart above illustrates how several different pieces of evidence can
be put together in order to constitute proof of guilt.
6
be put together in order to constitute proof of guilt.
The doctrine of judicial notice is an evidentiary shortcut. Judicial notice is designed
7
to speed up the trial and eliminate the necessity of formally proving the truth of a
particular matter when the truth is not in dispute.
Direct Evidence
8
Direct evidence usually is the testimony of witnesses that ties the defendant
directly to the commission of the crime, such as the testimony of an
eyewitness who can positively state that the defendant committed the crime.
Real Evidence
Sometimes referred to as “physical evidence,” real evidence is connected
with the commission of the crime and can be produced in court.
Demonstrative Evidence
Demonstrative, or illustrative, evidence is not identical to real evidence even
though the items introduced are tangible. It consists of maps, diagrams,
sketches, photographs, tape recordings, videotapes, X-rays, and visual tests
and demonstrations produced to assist witnesses in explaining their
testimony.
Circumstantial Evidence
9
It is a myth that one cannot be convicted of a crime solely o.
How to testify EffectivelyChapter 15By Tiffany HoustonMay.docxwellesleyterresa
How to testify Effectively
Chapter 15
By: Tiffany Houston
May 7, 2016
Objectives
Name the different methods used to notify a law enforcement professional to appear in court
Describe the appropriate clothing for law enforcement professionals to wear in court
Identify those people to whom the law enforcement professional should not speak to during recesses
Explain what a law enforcement professional should do while testifying with respect to objections
State what a law enforcement professional should do when he or she does not remember the answer to a question asked
Explain what a law enforcement professional should do when asked an argumentative question on cross-examination that the defense attorney insists should be answered yes or no.
The law enforcement professional Role
Law Enforcement plays a important role in the prosecution process:
Interview witnesses,
preserve the crime scene,
collect physical evidence,
Due to the level of interaction Law Enforcement plays, they also will be requested to appear in court to testify. Like any witness, they also maybe reluctant in the testimonial process.
The key to testifying is simple: Testify truthfully.
Notification to appear
Notification to appear:
Supoena- A court order demanding the presence of the person in court as a witness
On-call- A direction in a subpoena that states the law enforcement official is not needed to appear personally in court unless called by the prosecutor. This requires that the law enforcement official remains nearby and readily available for a court appearance.
Phone call- The prosecutor may merely just call the law enforcement official advising him or her that their presence in needed in court as a witness.
What to do before the trial
A. The law enforcement official must provide all information to the prosecutor, even if it is a weakness or problem with the case: Search warrant, arrest, collection and analysis of evidence, interrogation of the defendant.
The law enforcement official must refamiliarize themselves with the facts of the case, and speak with prosecution what they are expected to testify about. In return, discuss the case with the superior officer and partner to get a second eye on how to present the facts and physical evidence.
If an expert professional is testifying, they must be qualified expert, ensure they have all evidence available for court, and prepare it for proper presentation.
What to wear in Court
Wear to court what you wear to work is how most law enforcement official think. (shined shoes, clean and pressed uniform, no bulge from pencils notebooks, or anything that can distract the testimony.)
If a uniform it not worn, business attire is the Norm for court. (solid-color dress shirt, modest tie, with a matching coat jakect, business suit conservative blouse and dress slacks or skirt.)
Some who are off duty uniformed officers will wear business attire-only if they are traveling to court in their personal vehicles.
Prosecution pref ...
CHARLES DYER'S NOT GUILTY VERDICT FOR THE FEDERAL WEAPONS CHARGE! Deborah Swan
Charles Dyer was set up by a member of the ARM , American Resistance Movement, by giving him what appeared to be a grenade launcher. This type of weapon is legal for Charles to won do o his firearm military training. This is the case documents of his federal charge of having a stolen military weapon in his possession. Charles demanded a jury trial. The jury found Charles not guilty!
Matthew Professional CV experienced Government LiaisonMattGardner52
As an experienced Government Liaison, I have demonstrated expertise in Corporate Governance. My skill set includes senior-level management in Contract Management, Legal Support, and Diplomatic Relations. I have also gained proficiency as a Corporate Liaison, utilizing my strong background in accounting, finance, and legal, with a Bachelor's degree (B.A.) from California State University. My Administrative Skills further strengthen my ability to contribute to the growth and success of any organization.
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentationseri bangash
"Lifting the Corporate Veil" is a legal concept that refers to the judicial act of disregarding the separate legal personality of a corporation or limited liability company (LLC). Normally, a corporation is considered a legal entity separate from its shareholders or members, meaning that the personal assets of shareholders or members are protected from the liabilities of the corporation. However, there are certain situations where courts may decide to "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil, holding shareholders or members personally liable for the debts or actions of the corporation.
Here are some common scenarios in which courts might lift the corporate veil:
Fraud or Illegality: If shareholders or members use the corporate structure to perpetrate fraud, evade legal obligations, or engage in illegal activities, courts may disregard the corporate entity and hold those individuals personally liable.
Undercapitalization: If a corporation is formed with insufficient capital to conduct its intended business and meet its foreseeable liabilities, and this lack of capitalization results in harm to creditors or other parties, courts may lift the corporate veil to hold shareholders or members liable.
Failure to Observe Corporate Formalities: Corporations and LLCs are required to observe certain formalities, such as holding regular meetings, maintaining separate financial records, and avoiding commingling of personal and corporate assets. If these formalities are not observed and the corporate structure is used as a mere façade, courts may disregard the corporate entity.
Alter Ego: If there is such a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and its shareholders or members that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individuals no longer exist, courts may treat the corporation as the alter ego of its owners and hold them personally liable.
Group Enterprises: In some cases, where multiple corporations are closely related or form part of a single economic unit, courts may pierce the corporate veil to achieve equity, particularly if one corporation's actions harm creditors or other stakeholders and the corporate structure is being used to shield culpable parties from liability.
Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law fi...Massimo Talia
This guide aims to provide information on how lawyers will be able to use the opportunities provided by AI tools and how such tools could help the business processes of small firms. Its objective is to provide lawyers with some background to understand what they can and cannot realistically expect from these products. This guide aims to give a reference point for small law practices in the EU
against which they can evaluate those classes of AI applications that are probably the most relevant for them.
A "File Trademark" is a legal term referring to the registration of a unique symbol, logo, or name used to identify and distinguish products or services. This process provides legal protection, granting exclusive rights to the trademark owner, and helps prevent unauthorized use by competitors.
Visit Now: https://www.tumblr.com/trademark-quick/751620857551634432/ensure-legal-protection-file-your-trademark-with?source=share
Car Accident Injury Do I Have a Case....Knowyourright
Every year, thousands of Minnesotans are injured in car accidents. These injuries can be severe – even life-changing. Under Minnesota law, you can pursue compensation through a personal injury lawsuit.
Synopsis On Annual General Meeting/Extra Ordinary General Meeting With Ordinary And Special Businesses And Ordinary And Special Resolutions with Companies (Postal Ballot) Regulations, 2018
Daftar Rumpun, Pohon, dan Cabang Ilmu (28 Mei 2024).pdf
chapter 4,.. 123 oral evidence fikadu tolosa
1. Oral evidence
What do you mean by Oral evidence?
The black’s law dictionary, which is the 8th edition, defines oral
evidence as:
“Verbal evidence: which is given by word of mouth: the oral
testimony given by witnesses in court”.
That is, oral evidence is ordinary kind of evidence given by
witness by words of mouth.
2. It is a statement made by a competent witness, under
oath or affirmation, usually related to legal proceeding.
3. It is the making of a statement under oath or
affirmation in judicial proceeding.
Therefore, oral evidence means all statements which the
court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses
in relation to the matters of fact under inquiry.
4. Someone who has first-hand knowledge about a crime or
dramatic event through their senses (e.g. seeing, hearing,
smelling, touching) and can help certifies important
considerations to the crime or event. (Ronald L. Melnick).
5. A witness who testifies to what he has seen, heard, or
otherwise observed.
I have seen or observed,
I have heard,
I have smelled,
I have felt,
I have tasted
6. An expert who testifies not only what he has seen, heard, or
otherwise observed personally but he may also offer an opinion
applying his expert knowledge to facts he has not personally
observed.
7. Can everyone become a witness?
What do you think must a person fulfill to be a witness?
A child
Intoxicated person
Insane person
Criminally convicted person
Which persons are capable to testify?
8. Competence is the capacity of a person to do something
What do you mean by witness competence?
It is the capacity of a person to testify
9. A competent witness is one who is fit and commonly
gives his testimony before court of a judicial proceeding
under oath or affirmation.
A competent witness is one who is able to testify or one
whom nothing prevents from testifying unless there are
some conditions which bar him from doing so.
10. Elements
1. A person (natural)
2. Able to testify (who is fit) or nothing prevent him from
testifying
3. The testimony should be given before court of law under
oath or affirmation
12. As a matter of principle everybody is presumed
to be competent witness.
This means, incompetence of witness is in an
exceptional circumstances.
13. In order to be competent witness a person should have testimonial capacities
To observe
To remember (recollection)
To communicate (to understand questions and to give answer)
To understand the obligation to speak truthfully
Note: now a days these requirements were reduced because children and
mentally disabled person were given the chance to testify.
14. Special competency refers to a witness's ability to testify opinions
or conclusions he has arrived at by evaluating facts he has
observed, facts presented to him by counsel or a combination of
both types of facts.
E.g. if you go to Hospital you don’t tell your illness to the Doctor,
rather you will tell him the fact of you illness then after
examination he will tell you what your illness was.
15. Unlike general competence special competence is not presumed
This means: everyone is not presumed to have special competence
special competence sub-divided in to two i.e.
1. Layman’s Opinion
2. Expert Opinion
What is their difference?
16. The witness is not expert in the matter concerning which he testifies or he
does not have any special expert in the subject matter.
He may give his opinion based on the fact he observed.
He may give is opinion as to
Intoxication, age, appearance, conduct of business, a value of service
and general characteristics of wealth …etc.
He may not give conclusion, rather leaves it to the court
The court may conclude depending on the case and practice.
The opinion of non-expert is not admissible and it is up to the discretion of
the court.
17. The witness is expert in the matter concerning which he testifies.
The opinion of expert witness may be required either
By the court or
By the parties
In order to call expert witness the subject matter must be so-complicated or
complex.
The purpose of expert witness is in order to assist the judge in framing the
proper judgment regarding the fact.
In order to be expert witness the witness must show special skill, training,
education, and experience.
18. As a matter of principle, it is presumed that everyone is capable of
testifying before the court. However, there are exceptional grounds in
which witnesses are considered as incompetent to testify before the
court.
“The witnesses competency is the rule, and their incompetence is the
exception, and their incompetence lies with a very narrow compass.”
19. The incompetence is due to lack of organic and moral capacities of witnesses
As per Rule 39 of the Court Rules of 1943 and Rule 92 of the Draft Evidence
Rule, those grounds of incompetency are:
Mental incapacity,
Physical incapacity,
Legal interdiction (conviction of crime)
Interest in the outcome of the case
These grounds are grounds to raise objection
20. It is a ground for raising objections in common law legal
system and in Ethiopia.
This ground covers mostly the organic incapacity aspects of
the incompetency of witness.
It comprises children, insane, and intoxicated person,
However, there is no flat rule today in both common law legal system
and in present Ethiopian laws to declare any of these peoples
incompetent.
21. Reason
Because they are incapable
To observe what is right or wrong;
To remember what they have observed;
To communicate or to understand questions and to give answer
To understand the obligation to speak truthfully
However, the incapacity is not absolute, because it
should be tested
22. In both common law legal system and in Ethiopia (DER rule 92
and 104 (1)) for mentally incapable person to be competent
witness the tests are:
communication
To understand the question put them and rationally answer
them.
To understand the duty to speak the truth
If they fulfill this test they are competent if not they are not
competent
23. This covers those persons, who have visual, hearing and
speaking deficiencies (blind, deaf and dumb)
What do you think the reason for the incompetence of
blind, deaf and dump from becoming competent witness
Exception
According to the general rule, physical incapacity is no bar to a witness's
competency as long as these persons can understand the questions put to him
and give rational answers to those questions.
24. DER rule 92 (2)
If a person cannot speak, see and hear, he may still testify if
questions can be put to him in some accurate fashion and he
can reply by signs or writing which can be accurately
interpreted by some one sworn to do so accurately.
Note
In Ethiopia, even though there is no law that governs such
issue, these types of persons are not incompetent to stand as
witness merely because they are blind, deaf and dumb.
25. In present Ethiopia this is no longer a bar to competency of
witness.
Legal basis
The FDRE Constitution, Art. 142 of the Criminal procedure code and
Art. 268 of the Civil procedure code.
26. Which persons do have interest in the outcome of the case?
Persons related by affinity (marriage)
Persons related by consanguinity (blood)
Other emotional grounds
In early times the above relations are the grounds of incompetence, however,
there is no such restriction in present time.
27. How you can adduce oral evidence before court of law?
Through question and answer
There are three question i.e.
Examination in chief
Cross-examination
Re-examination
28. Physical appearance of the witness
To check the identity of the witness (Name and
address of the witness or to check his ID)
Oath
Examination in-chief
Cross-examination and
Re-examination
The court has discretion to raise question at any time
for clarification purpose and not for examination.
29. Who is going to bring witness? Or who starts to
examine the witness?
What is the purpose of examination in-chief?
What are the legal bases and rules regarding
examination-in-chief?
30. A party who has burden of production is going to bring
witness
plaintiff in civil cases
public prosecutor in criminal cases
Therefore, the plaintiff and the public prosecutor starts in civil
and criminal cases respectively.
31. It crates an opportunity to introduce evidence before court of law
It creates an opportunity to prove or disprove an alleged fact.
32. Art. 137 (1 & 2) of the Cr.p.c, Art. 263 (1 & 2) of the Civ.p.c. and
Art. 37 of 1943 court rule.
The question put in chief examination and the answer thereof shall
be
Related to the facts of the case
Relevant to the issue to be decided.
The witness may describe the event in chronological order
leading questions are prohibited without the permission of the court
or the accused or his advocate or the public prosecutor.
Questions asked in chief-examination begins with who, what, where,
when and why
33. Irrelevant question
Leading question
A witness should not be asked a question that suggests its answer
Opinion
A witness should not be asked to give his opinion.
Hearsay
A witness should not be asked a question that invites him to give
inadmissible evidence.
34. Who cross-examine the witness?
The opponent party (the party against whom the witness testifies)
When does cross-examination starts?
It follows immediately after chief examination
What is the purpose of cross-examination?
What is the rules & the legal basis of cross-examination?
35. In order to weaken or discredited the testimony of the witness given
through chief-examination.
In order to show the witness’s evidence was based on the mistaken
understanding of the event;
In order to give chance to the opposing party to defend allegation or
claim made against them.
Generally speaking it creates an opportunity to confront any evidence
36. Cross-examination is a constitutional right (Art. 20 (4) of the
FDRE Constitution)
Art. 137 (3) and Art. 263 (3) of the criminal and civil procedure
code respectively.
parties are at liberty to ask leading questions
37. Who Re-examine the witness?
The party who called the witnesses or the party who started first i.e. the
plaintiff and the public prosecutor in civil and criminal cases respectively.
When does Re-examination starts?
It follows immediately after cross-examination
What is the purpose of Re-examination?
What is the rules & the legal basis of Re-examination?
38. In order to cure what is damaged during cross-examination or
In order to repair any damage done to examination in chief by
asking further question on the matter which arose during cross-
examination.
In order to clarify matters which have been raised in cross-
examination
39. Art. 139 and Art. 263 (4) of the criminal and civil procedure
code respectively.
It is not mandatory to Re-examine witnesses
Re-examination is confined to issues that were covered in
cross-examination. This means new matter may not be introduced
in re-examination except by the permission of the court.
It is better questions should not be asked unless the witness
knows the answer.
Leading questions is not allowed
40. If there is no chief-examination there is no cross-examination. The same is
true if there is no cross-examination there is no re-examination.
According to Art. 140 of the Cr.p.c failure to cross examine does not
constitute an admission of the truth, however, in civil cases silent amounts to
acceptance or admission.
In both civil and criminal cases judges has discretion to raise question to
witnesses for the purpose of clarification
The Ethiopian system of witness inquiry is “Adversarial system of Inquiry”
41. (Difference) chief-examination made by the party who calls the
witness, cross-examination made by the opposing (adverse) party,
and re-examination made by the party who calls the witness.
(Difference) examination in chief conducted in 1st place then
followed by cross-examination (2nd) and finally Re-examination (3rd).
(Difference) the purpose of chief-examination is to produce evidence
in order to prove allegation or claim, whereas the purpose of cross-
examination is to discredit the testimony given in chief-examination
and finally the purpose of re-examination is to remove inconsistency.
42. (Difference) in chief-examination leading question are not
allowed without the permission of the court, in cross-
examination leading question is not prohibited and finally in re-
examination asking leading question is prohibited and also
parties cannot introduce new matters.
(Difference) chief-examination is parts and parcel of the legal
proceeding, cross-examination is most essential part in finding
the truth and Re-examination not essential.
43. What do you mean by Hearsay Evidence?
“Hear” & “say”
It is types of Oral evidence,
It is a statement (oral or written) made outside the court,
The witness doesn’t have direct knowledge and observation
about the fact sought to be proved.