Also known as: direct examinations · direct-exam · direct exam
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The initial questioning of a witness by the party who called the witness to testify. The examiner elicits facts essential to the claim or defense through nonleading questions that allow the witness to provide narrative responses.
Darrell Duncan called Denise Donovan to describe the installation of monitoring wells at a waste site. On direct she testified only about local sampling and quarterly verification. The opposing party then sought to question her about compliance reports from a distant facility. The court sustained an objection because the cross exceeded the subject matter of the direct examination.
Dominion Capital called Darius Dixon to testify about reconciliation meetings and expense reclassifications. After Dixon finished his direct examination the defense moved for production of his prior written compliance report in the government's possession. The court ordered the report produced because it related to the subject matter of the testimony.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Deborah Dunn faced a motion to exclude her prior theft conviction. To lessen its impact she introduced the conviction herself during her direct examination. On appeal she could not claim error in the denial of the motion because she had taken the sting out by volunteering the evidence on direct.
Daphne Doyle called David Dawson a former manager of the defendant company. Because Dawson remained identified with the adverse party the court permitted leading questions during his direct examination to develop testimony about cost-cutting directives that concealed defects.
An expert witness for Desert Oil relied on a published study during direct examination to support an opinion about contaminant migration. The study was established as reliable authority and the relevant statements were read into evidence after the expert's testimony.
A victim made statements to police describing an assault while separated from the defendant. The statements were deemed testimonial because they recounted past events in response to questioning in a manner that substituted for live testimony on direct examination.
Direct examination allows the calling party to elicit facts essential to its claim or defense through the witness's own narrative responses.
Leading questions are generally prohibited on direct examination except when necessary to develop testimony or when the witness is hostile an adverse party or identified with an adverse party.
Cross-examination is limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the witness's credibility although the court may permit additional inquiry.
After a nondefendant witness testifies on direct the opposing party may obtain on motion any prior statement of that witness in the calling party's possession that relates to the subject matter of the testimony.
A defendant who preemptively introduces a prior conviction on direct examination to lessen its impact forfeits appellate review of a ruling admitting that evidence.
…under official interrogation are an obvious substitute for live testimony, because they do precisely what a witness does on direct examination; they are inherently testimonial.[^maj-5] Both Indiana and the United States as amicus curiae argue that this case should be resolved much like Davis . For the reasons we find the…