Also known as: leading question · suggestive question
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A form of questioning that suggests the answer desired by the examiner. Leading questions are generally prohibited on direct examination except when necessary to develop the witness's testimony, but are ordinarily permitted on cross-examination and when examining a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party.
Patient Laura Perez calls elderly nurse's aide Evelyn Brooks in her malpractice suit against Dr. Michael Stone. Brooks appears visibly anxious and struggles to recall the sequence of events. The judge permits Perez's counsel to use leading questions to guide Brooks through Dr. Stone's actions that night. The structured questions allow Brooks to provide coherent testimony about the delayed diagnosis.
The decedent's estate calls unrelated driver Jordan Lee in its wrongful death action against Apex Trucking. Lee appears confused and repeatedly states he cannot recall the sequence of the collision. Plaintiff's counsel asks whether the truck swerved after the light turned red. The court overrules the defense objection and allows the leading questions to help Lee organize his account of the events.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Liberty Housing calls Tabitha, who managed the apartment complex for Apex Development before the sale, in its fraud suit. Tabitha resigned shortly after closing and now works for Liberty. Liberty's counsel uses leading questions to elicit details about Apex's concealment of plumbing defects. The court permits the leading questions because Tabitha is identified with the adverse party.
Oak Network calls its field technician Connie in the contract dispute with Red Fiber. Connie cannot recall the exact date she placed cable along Route 7. Counsel supplies the date and location and asks Connie to confirm. The court allows the leading questions on direct because the witness is aligned with the calling party and the questions develop routine technical testimony.
The prosecutor calls former junior analyst Daniel Cho in the securities fraud case against Apex Capital. Cho entered a cooperation agreement and testifies that senior managers ordered falsified risk reports. The prosecutor uses leading questions on direct. The court overrules the defense objection because Cho is identified with the adverse corporate defendant.
Ridge Hotels calls head of housekeeping Nina in the negligence suit brought by Rachel after a slip-and-fall. Nina hesitates and states she cannot recall the inspection routines without her checklist. Counsel supplies successive details about daily checks and logs. The court permits the limited leading questions because they develop testimony about repetitive operational procedures.
Leading questions may be used on direct examination when necessary to develop the witness's testimony, such as when the witness is confused, nervous, elderly, forgetful, or struggling to organize events. The court also permits them when the witness is hostile, an adverse party, or identified with an adverse party.
Supporting sources
Leading questions are permitted on cross-examination because the witness is typically aligned with the opposing party and unlikely to accept the examiner's suggestions without resistance. This allows the cross-examiner to test credibility and challenge the direct testimony effectively.
Current employment with the adverse party is generally sufficient to treat the witness as identified with that party, allowing leading questions on direct. Historical employment may also support the exception when the witness's prior role involved the events at issue.
Supporting sources
The court must still exercise reasonable control to ensure the questions develop testimony rather than substitute counsel's narrative for the witness's independent recollection. Leading questions that supply core disputed facts or create a scripted account may exceed the exception.
Supporting sources
…had been told that whether she would be released "depend[ed] on how the investigation continues." App. 81. In response to often leading questions from police detectives, she implicated her husband in Lee's stabbing and at least arguably undermined his self-defense claim. Despite all this, the trial court admitted her statement,…