A proud wife season 1 episode 1 question

Haha, I watched the fifth season! 1, maintaining indicates that the objection is valid, and rejecting indicates that the objection is invalid. 2. If the prosecutor of the prosecution raises an objection and the judge says that the objection is valid, the opposing lawyer can't raise this question, or he has to put it another way to achieve his goal. Of course, it is not good for the opposing lawyer, because the first questions raised by the opposing lawyer are carefully prepared or to the point. But lawyers often have alternatives, so you can see that even if the judge says that the objection is established, the lawyer can immediately ask the second question to achieve his goal. No matter which side raises an objection, it must follow certain rules, so you can see that in the objection, there will be an objection later to clarify which rule is based on. The following is a paper that introduces cross-examination and its rules in detail, which is very good and can be used for reference. -study the rules of cross-examination. Liu Lixia's disciplinary classification litigation system originated from cross-examination which is an important feature of adversarial trial. This paper focuses on the connotation of cross-examination rules and explores the theoretical roots behind them. These rules include: cross-examination stage. Key words: cross-examination, main inquiry, counter-inquiry, induced inquiry and witness writing. The cross-examination in 2003 refers to the questioning of witnesses from a relative position, led by the parties, including main inquiry, counter-inquiry, re-main inquiry and re-counter-inquiry. Common law countries and common law countries have different concepts of witnesses. In common law countries, witnesses include parties, experts and the third person who knows the situation of the case and makes statements to the judicial organs, with a wide range. In civil law countries, the witness refers to the third person who knows the case and makes a statement to the judicial organ, excluding the parties and experts. Our country's laws have the same provisions on the scope of witnesses as those of civil law countries, excluding parties and experts. The witness in this paper adopts the concept of witness in common law countries. Cross-examination uses two effective cognitive methods to discover the truth. First, multi-angle observation, that is, the parties collect evidence from different angles, so as to collect the most comprehensive evidence and prove that the facts of the case are closest to the truth; The second is the method of questioning, that is, the parties seek the fault of the other party's evidence from a relative position for their own interests. Because the parties know the truth of the case best, they often hit the nail on the head and expose the falsehood in the other party's evidence. Therefore, cross-examination is praised by some British and American scholars as the most effective way to discover the truth. China has basically established the overall framework of cross-examination system in legislation and its interpretation. It is stipulated that the subjects of cross-examination in court are: plaintiff, defendant, defender, agent ad litem and other participants in litigation; The subjects of interrogation are: defendant, victim, private prosecutor, plaintiff and defendant in incidental civil litigation, parties in civil litigation, parties in administrative litigation, general witnesses and expert witnesses. The rules of trial cross-examination include: cross-examination stage, order rule, association rule, prohibition of induced questions rule, witness protection rule, objection rule and so on. However, the content of the above rules is brief and the operability is poor. There are still some problems in the practice of cross-examination in court in China, such as fewer witnesses appearing in court, which leads to a narrow range of cross-examination objects; There is still a lack of antagonism in the limited cross-examination of the trial. The transition from trial system to confrontation system in China has become the general trend and the inevitable choice of legislation. It is one of the characteristics of adversarial trial mode to establish a trial investigation mode centered on questioning witnesses, in which physical evidence and documentary evidence are presented. At present, strengthening and perfecting the rules of cross-examination has become an urgent task to further promote the reform of adversarial trial in China. Guided by the concept of fairness and efficiency, this paper absorbs the reasonable factors of cross-examination rules in common law system, and combines with the trial practice in China, focusing on the connotation of cross-examination rules, exploring the theoretical roots behind the rules, hoping to play a role in attracting jade. First, the cross-examination stage, the order rule 1, the first stage of cross-examination, that is, the main question, also known as direct inquiry, that is, the applicant's inquiry about its witnesses. Its purpose is to guide the witness to make a clear and correct statement to the court, which is conducive to the applicant to prove the facts of the case. Questions are usually asked in the form of questions and answers. Sometimes, in order to save time, with the consent of the witness, oral questioning can also be replaced by written testimony of pre-trial questioning. Written testimony has been exchanged with the other party in the evidence display, and its content has been understood by the other party. 2. The second stage of cross-examination, that is, cross-examination, also known as inquiry, is the inquiry of witnesses by the opposing party or its agent after the main inquiry. For example, in criminal proceedings, after the prosecution's main inquiry, the defense's inquiry about the prosecution witness is called counter-inquiry. In order to improve the efficiency of trial, the scope of cross-examination should be limited to the questions related to the content of cross-examination and the questions related to the integrity of witnesses. If the cross-examination goes beyond the above scope, it must be allowed by the court. There are two purposes of cross-examination: one is to obtain statements that are beneficial to the cross-examination. That is, by inducing questioning, the opposing witness can agree with some facts or inferences that are beneficial to the counter-questioner. In a case in America, the prosecution accused the defendant of biting off the victim's ear. The only witness at that time was an upright and stubborn old man unknown to the prosecution. When the defense questioned the witness, the witness insisted that he only saw the defendant fighting with the victim and did not see the defendant bite off the victim's ear. The witness looks honest and doesn't look like perjury, so it is difficult to determine whether the defendant bit off the victim's ear for a while. However, when the prosecutor asked in the cross-examination, "You said you didn't see the defendant bite off the victim's ear, what did you see?" The witness said, "Let me see, when I came across the street, yes, I saw an ear coming out of the defendant's mouth." In this case, the prosecution obtained testimony in its favor through cross-examination. Second, undermine the reliability of witness statements in the main inquiry. That is to say, by asking questions such as the witness's bad conduct, criminal record, prejudice against one party, defective perception or expression ability, and inconsistent previous statements, the reliability of the witness is questioned and the falsehood of the witness's statement is exposed, thus reducing the credibility of the witness's statement in the main inquiry. Japan has such a case. In the trial of a terrorism case, the witness said that he saw the defendant set fire to the police station and threw asphalt into the fire. The defense made the following cross-examination: the defender asked, "You said you could smell the asphalt, didn't you?" The witness replied, "Yes." Q: "Can you smell the asphalt?" A: "Yes." Q: "So, suppose there is asphalt in this yard, can you smell it?" A: "Of course." Q: "Now because there is no asphalt in the court, you can't smell it, can you?" Answer: "Yes, if there is asphalt, I can smell it anywhere." The defender immediately took a piece of asphalt out of his pocket and put it on the table, so the defendant was acquitted. This is a typical case of questioning the reliability of the other party's testimony. In addition, after achieving the first goal, it may no longer question the reliability of witness statements. Because the facts that are beneficial to the opposing witness are often more credible than the same facts confirmed by the opposing witness. If you attack the reliability of the opposing witness, it will also destroy the factual foundation that has been obtained in favor of yourself. When you can't have it both ways, you can only choose one. 3. The third stage of cross-examination, that is, asking and asking again is also called asking again, or asking again is also called asking again, that is, after asking questions, the evidential party asks the witness again. Because rhetorical questions are mostly leading questions, witnesses and experts only need to answer "yes" or "no", and there is no opportunity to supplement or explain the matters mentioned in rhetorical questions. The second problem is to give them a chance to supplement or explain. In order to ensure the efficiency of cross-examination, the content of re-examination is limited to the matters arising from the counter-examination, and no new matters may be introduced without the permission of the judge. Therefore, re-questioning has two opposite purposes: one is to supplement or explain some facts or inferences agreed by our own witnesses that are conducive to counter-questioning, so that the above statements can be transformed into our own statements. For example, in the cross-examination of a rape victim, the defender asked the victim to admit that she didn't report the case to the police station until she was rape 2 hours later, so as to prove that the victim's statement about rape was not credible. The prosecution used the question again to get the victim to explain it. The prosecutor asked, "Why don't you call the police station within 2 hours?" The victim replied, "I was worried about my reputation at that time, fearing that that person was still in my house." Second, restore the reliability of witnesses destroyed by cross-examination. For example, in a lawsuit involving speeding, the defendant's barrister asked the witness who witnessed speeding, and his answer was as follows: Q: Mr. Li, did you see my client's car rush out of the detour at high speed? A: Yes. Q: I believe your estimate of the speed is 60 miles per hour. A: Almost. Q: Can you accurately judge the speed? A: Not bad. Q: Do you drive a car or a motorcycle? A: No. At this point, the counter-investigation will not continue in this regard. But a shrewd barrister knows that the other party will save the last sentence for the closing statement. The other party will say: The witness doesn't know how to drive, how can he accurately judge the speed? Therefore, the witness's barrister wanted to make a remedy. When he knew the facts/answers, he asked the witness, "What was your past and present job?" The witness replied, "I worked as a train driver for 12 years and recently retired." In this way, the remedy is successful, because the witness's work experience tells the judge or arbitrator that he has enough ability to judge the speed of the car. 4. The fourth stage of cross-examination, that is, re-cross-examination, also known as re-cross-examination, refers to the re-examination of witnesses by the other party after re-examination. The purpose of further cross-examination is basically the same as that of cross-examination, that is, first, to obtain new statements conducive to cross-examination. Second, it undermines the reliability of witness statements in the re-examination but we should not ask questions repeatedly in the counter-question. The above are the four basic stages of cross-examination in turn. However, cross-examination is not only four stages. If the parties still need to ask questions, they can repeat the main question and rhetorical question (each party will give the other party a chance to ask questions after asking). ), until the parties have nothing to ask. It doesn't matter who finally ends the inquiry. If the parties keep asking repetitive or irrelevant questions in order to complete the inquiry, the judge has the right to stop the inquiry. Not all cross-examination has to go through the above four stages. The first stage of cross-examination, that is, the main inquiry, is an indispensable procedure in cross-examination. But if the witness is irrelevant, the other party may not cross-examine. Of course, there will be no stage of asking and asking again. Because questioning is a right of the party concerned, he can exercise it or give it up. Second, it is forbidden to induce questions. Inducing questions refers to a way of asking questions in which the questioner contains the answers he wants and implies that the interviewee answers according to the answers he wants. For example, the main inquirer asked, "Is that man about 40 years old?" This inquiry is an induced inquiry. The layman's question should be "How old is that man?" . The rule against leading questions is that leading questions should not be used in the main inquiry unless it is necessary to develop witness statements. In counter-questioning, generally speaking, leading questions should be allowed. The reason for prohibiting the rule of induced questioning is that induced questioning generally includes the answer in the question, and the interviewee only needs to answer "yes" or "no". Because the questioner who asks leading questions has put the answer on the witness's lips, if the witness has a tendency to support the questioner, it is difficult for the judge to judge whether the witness makes a true statement independently from memory or makes a false answer at will. However, in the subject inquiry, in order to seek the truth or improve the efficiency of inquiry, there are also exceptions to the rule of prohibiting induced inquiry. Under the following circumstances, with the permission of the judge, an induced inquiry may be conducted: (1). When it comes to introductory, preparatory and transitional facts that are not directly related to the controversial issues, an inductive investigation can be conducted. For example, ask, "You work in Dahua Company, don't you?" . (2) Hostile witnesses can ask leading questions. For example, in the trial of a traffic accident case, the prosecutor asked the defendant's friend about the defendant's drunk driving. Q: "You drank a catty of white wine with the defendant at noon, didn't you?" . (3) For witnesses with limited understanding or expression ability, such as mentally retarded people and children, inductive questioning can be conducted. (4) It is generally allowed to ask leading questions to evaluators. (5) For those witnesses who have exhausted their memories but obviously have additional relevant information, they can ask leading questions to awaken their memories. For example, ask, "Can you remember the names of other people who attended the meeting you just mentioned?" A: "No, I can't remember. I'm sure there are others present, but I just can't remember their names now. " Q: "Have you finished remembering all the people present?" A: "Yes, I'm afraid so. I am only a temporary memory disorder. " Q: "Your Honor, may I ask this witness a leading question about other people's names now?" The judge replied, "Yes." Q: "Would it help you if I guessed that Mr. Morton P. Leishness might have attended the meeting?" A: "You are right! I remember now, and Leshnis was there. " 3. Relevance rule Relevance evidence refers to evidence that tends to prove facts that have an impact on litigation judgment, and the possibility of such evidence is greater or lesser. Relevance rule means that witness statements should be related to the facts of the case (relevance is also called relevance), excluding irrelevant witness statements. Although the witness's statement is relevant, if its probative value is substantially exceeded by the following factors, that is, unfair prejudice, the risk of confusing disputes or misleading judges, or considering the unnecessary statement of undue delay, wasting time or repeating evidence, the evidence can still be excluded. Four. The principle of legality refers to the subject qualification of witnesses. The ways, procedures and means of obtaining witness testimony must be legal, and the illegal witness testimony must be excluded, unless the witness testimony is only slightly illegal and can be remedied. For example, in a rape trial, the husband of the murdered woman testified in court that the defendant Li raped his wife. Defendant Li's defense lawyer asked the witness, "You were not there when your wife was raped, weren't you?" Answer: "Yes, I was not at home." Q: "You heard your wife say the fact that she was raped, didn't you?" A: "Yes." Q: "Your wife was identified as a mental patient. Do you think it's true? " A: "It's true." Q: "Has your wife been suffering from mental illness since she got married?" A: "Yes." Q: "Was your wife mentally ill when she was raped?" A: "Yes." Defense lawyer: "presiding judge, we think the testimony of the witness about the rape of his wife should be excluded." Presiding judge: "Support the defense view. Because both the prosecution and the defense have no objection to the fact that the victim is a mental patient, the victim is not qualified to testify. The witness only relayed his wife's words, and his testimony should of course be excluded. " V. Rules of Opinion Evidence Opinion evidence refers to statements provided by general witnesses on matters speculated by the facts they have experienced. The opinion evidence rule means that the opinions of general witnesses should be excluded except expert witnesses, except for some common-sense opinions based on empirical facts. For example, in the cross-examination of a murder case in which the defendant was accused of drowning his son Liang, the prosecution witness testified: "I was too far away from the defendant at that time, and I was not sure that the child held by the defendant was Liang. However, this child looks like Liang. " Defense lawyer: "Objection! Opinion evidence. " Judge: "Sustained." The exception to the exclusion rule of opinion testimony means that if the witness is not an expert, his opinion or reasoning testimony can be adopted under the following circumstances: (1) It is reasonably based on the feelings of the witness; And (b) facilitating a clear understanding of the witness's testimony or determining disputed facts. And if you don't testify in the form of opinion testimony, it is difficult to express the facts clearly. For example: (1) Taste and smell problem-"smell of gunpowder". (2) The feeling of another person-"He looks very nervous". (3) Vehicle speed-"He drives very, very fast". (4) Voice recognition-"I have been familiar with his voice for 15 years, and I can recognize his voice everywhere, and it is his voice on the phone". (5) Alcoholic drinks-"That man drank wine". (6) The authenticity of another person's handwriting-"That's my husband's signature" and so on. The testimony of the above opinions is generally not opposed. Sixth, the rules against compound and other random questions The so-called compound question means that a question contains more than two questions. For example, ask, "Tell the judge where you are and whether you are talking to a gentleman. What's his name? If so, what was your conversation? " A: "ok. He said his name was Wang Jianhua. Would you please repeat your question? " Because it is difficult for witnesses to remember too many questions, such questions almost always lead to incomplete answers. Therefore, it is best to ask only one question at a time when questioning. The so-called confused questions refer to questions with ambiguous answers, questions that violate logical requirements, and questions that assume unconfirmed facts because of improper language in the questions. For example, ask "victim, when did you stop taking drugs?" In fact, this does not prove that the victim took drugs. This kind of question is forced to be answered and should be banned. In addition, use simple and clear language when asking questions, and try to avoid using uncommon technical terms. Seven. Objection rule Objection rule means that if one party's inquiry violates the cross-examination rule, the other party has the right to raise an objection, and the judge decides whether the objection is valid or not. If the objection is ruled valid, the question or answer will be excluded; If the objection is ruled invalid, the witness's statement will be accepted as evidence. If the other party refuses to accept the judge's ruling, it may make a request for reconsideration, but the request for reconsideration will not affect the continuation of the trial. If, after reconsideration, it is considered that the judge's ruling has a major violation of the law, which seriously affects the determination of the facts of the case, a new hearing shall be held. The time to raise objections should be after the question is asked and before the witness answers. If the witness answers too quickly to ask before the witness answers, he should ask before the witness leaves the court at the latest. In order to ensure the efficiency of the trial, the court will not support the objection raised by the witness after leaving the court. For example, the prosecution asked, "Defendant, you stole goods from the store when you were 15 years old, right?" Defense lawyer: "Objection, presiding judge, irrelevant." Presiding Judge: "Sustained. What he did in his teens can't prove the charges against him now, that was 12 years ago. " In short, the effective implementation of the cross-examination system depends on the establishment and improvement of a series of supporting systems. In particular, the judge's auxiliary questioning system in court trial is a necessary supplement to the cross-examination system. Judge-assisted questioning system means that under the premise of mutual cross-examination, judges can continue to ask questions to witnesses on some key issues that have not been clarified. This trial inquiry mode not only mobilizes the enthusiasm of both parties, but also plays the role of the judge's control and leading role, which is conducive to finding out the truth of the case. This model is also the direction of the reform of cross-examination system in court trial in China. In addition, such as lawyer's agency system, pre-trial evidence display system, witness testimony system and evidence investigation system centered on witness investigation in court trial are also necessary guarantees for the effective implementation of cross-examination system. In short, a sound cross-examination system, a complete security system, and high-quality implementers (judges, prosecutors, lawyers, etc.). ) is a necessary condition for the effective implementation of the cross-examination system. Reference 1. Stryker: The Art of Advocacy. 1923 page 98. 2.[ See Rules of International Commercial Games: Anglo-American Evidence Law, edited by Yang Daming, Law Press, September 2002, p. 407. 3. Note: Court Technology, version 1992, p. 443. 4. See Jon R. Waltz's Complete Collection of Criminal Evidence, translated by He Jiahong, China People's Public Security University Press, 5. See U.S. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and Evidence translated by Bian Jianlin, China University of Political Science and Law Press, 1996, p. 1 17. 6. See (America) Jon? r？ Waltz, Complete Collection of Criminal Evidence, translated by He Jiahong, China People's Public Security University Press, 1993, p. 342. Please indicate that it is from Peking University Legal Information Network.