Question

unequitable cross-examination

Answer 1

paraphrase The court ruled in the R v. Lyttle case (a Canadian case) that a judge cannot
unreasonably prevent an accused person from conducting a thorough and
appropriate cross-examination of the witness. Unless the trial judge is convinced
that the questioning is not in good faith intended to reveal the credibility of a
person's testimony, the cross-examiner can be restricted to ask the witness
questions of such nature.

Answer 2

Unequitable cross-examination refers to a questioning strategy where one party tries to unfairly manipulate or disadvantage the witness during a court trial or hearing. This can involve tactics such as badgering, asking leading or misleading questions, making repetitive or irrelevant inquiries, or intimidating the witness. Unequitable cross-examination is generally considered unethical and may be objected to by opposing counsel or the judge to protect the rights of the witness and ensure a fair and impartial trial.

Answer 3

In the Canadian case R v. Lyttle, it was established by the court that a judge cannot unjustly restrict an accused person from conducting a comprehensive and suitable cross-examination of a witness. Unless the trial judge has valid reasons to believe that the questioning is not genuinely aimed at assessing the credibility of the witness's testimony, the cross-examiner should be allowed to ask relevant questions.