Scope of examination - Yongsan Court Martial Attorney
Cross-examination should be restricted to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness. The military judge can, in the exercise of discretion, permit inquiry about additional matters like on direct examination.
In United States v. Stavely, 33 M.J. 92 (1992) the court ruled that if cross-examination goes to witness credibility, military judge must afford counsel wide latitude. In United States v. Barnard, 32 M.J. 530 (A.F.C.M.R. 1990), the court held that an accused who chooses to testify on the merits is subject to same cross-examination as any other witness. Here, TC did not impermissibly comment on right to counsel when he asked accused if he saw a lawyer before making a pretrial statement.
In United States v. Mason, 59 M.J. 416 (2004), the court held that it was error to allow the trial counsel to ask on re-direct if the accused had ever requested a re-test of the DNA evidence in his case, because the question tended to improperly shift the burden of proof in the case to the defense.
According to the 1995 Amendments to Drafters Analysis if a witness is unable to testify because of intimidation by the proceedings, fear of the accused, emotional trauma, or mental or other infirmity, alternatives to live in-court testimony may be correct.
Court Martial Lawyer Michael Waddington represents Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps servicemembers facing UCMJ actions.
Comments