However, if defence counsel were to ask a question about this fact (not yet disclosed) during cross-examination, or if the accused mentioned something about it in his answers to cross-examination, this would allow the prosecution to re-examine the details. Indeed, the reconsideration can be used to ask further questions about the issues arising from the cross-examination. Examination-in-chief > cross-examination > re-examination Reconsideration can be a powerful tool for a lawyer when negligent questions are asked or negligent answers are given during cross-examination, for the following reason: There are, of course, many reasons why a witness may make a principal statement different from what is contained in his or her testimony. At one end of the spectrum, they could have lied in their testimony and then chosen to tell the truth in court; At the other end of the spectrum, they could have simply forgotten to mention a crucial fact. The memory update procedure can be used to help witnesses who have really forgotten what happened (see the main investigation for more on this), but what ultimately matters is the evidence presented at trial. If a prosecution witness does not mention a crucial fact, it is not the duty of defence counsel to fill in the gaps, just as prosecution counsel will not try to improve the testimony of a defence witness. It allows the party who first called him to ask further questions, but only if those questions relate to an issue that was raised during the cross-examination of that witness. «Reconsideration.» Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reexamination. Retrieved 11 October 2022. Once you finish testifying, you will be «released» by the judge (i.e.
informed that you are no longer needed) and can leave or, if you were present at the testimony in court, sit in the public kitchen and watch the rest of the case if you wish. If a prosecution witness fails to mention an important fact in the evidence, this could potentially work in favour of an accused, as this could be essential evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. Since judges or jurors do not receive copies of the testimony of witnesses called to testify at trial (except in rare cases), judges/jurors will not know if a witness does not mention something during his or her testimony. It serves to clarify issues that have become unclear during cross-examination; Often, it is not necessary to re-examine a witness, as nothing happens during cross-examination that requires further questions. For example, imagine a case involving 3 accused jointly of an attack. A prosecution witness gave written testimony in which the 3 accused attacked the complainant, but in the main testimony, the witness did not mention anything about the third accused. In the absence of other evidence concerning this third defendant (for example, other witnesses), this would mean that there is no evidence against him, so his defence counsel would be wise not to ask questions during cross-examination. However, if counsel decides to cross-examine a question such as, «You didn`t mention anything about the third accused, did you?», this would (a) perhaps prompt the witness to mention the involvement of the third accused; and/or (b) allow the prosecutor to revert to this issue at the main hearing, for example by telling the witness: «You have just been questioned about the third accused. If you could focus your attention on him for a while, can you explain why you didn`t mention anything about him? It is likely that the witness is now mentioning everything he has forgotten or has not said before. Re-examination is the last part of the examination of a witness at the main hearing after cross-examination. For example, a prosecution witness is led through his or her main testimony by the prosecutor, then cross-examined by the defense, and then questioned again by the prosecutor on all matters that occurred during cross-examination. Sometimes witnesses fail to «provide evidence» in their main testimony (i.e., they do not testify in court, which was contained in their written testimony).
You can read more about this in the Main Exam section. If you are an accused who has just testified, you will not be released, but you will have to return to the dock for the remainder of the trial. For this reason, in cases where a witness does not come to the evidence during his or her testimony, it is often better for a lawyer to say very little (if anything) during cross-examination or to tiptoe very carefully. It is used to ask further questions about something that was asked of the witness during cross-examination.