Cross-examination in criminal proceedings

Cross-examination does not only mean the simultaneous participation of two or more investigators. A necessary condition is that various participants in the process must interrogate. Questions asked alternately by the lawyer and the prosecutor in court also allow us to talk about the intersection of interests. The legislation does not clearly define the criteria for this type of procedural actions and does not divide it into subtypes.

During the preliminary investigation, the lawyer may ask questions during the interrogation, but only with the permission of the investigator. Naturally, they try to suppress the assistant’s activity. However, the lawyer’s questions themselves must be reflected in the protocol, indicating the fact of challenge and the reasons for the refusal. Representatives of the legal profession may be involved in interrogations not only of their clients, but also of those persons who are interrogated at their request.

The practice of cross-examination during a judicial investigation is much more common. The defense attorney asks questions first - until his questions on the merits are exhausted or before he abuses his powers. If the lawyer has any additional questions, you can ask them after the next participants have completed the interrogation. If no further requests arise, there will be no cross-examination.

The purpose of such a legal procedure:

• will help to refute the evidence given lawyer in Yekaterinburg;
• demonstrate the incompetence or inadequacy of those being interrogated;
• clarify previous testimony, including at the investigation or previous meetings;
• obtain new information confirming the correctness of your side.

Even specialists and experts can be cross-examined. The aggressive format implies sharp questions, an assertive tone, and emphasizing the opponent’s wrongness. Diversionary cross-examination is conducted in a friendly manner, but important circumstances are clarified in detail. With sequential tactics, questions are asked in a logical order, prompting desired judgments. Inconsistent tactics are intended to make it difficult to understand the lawyer's intentions. Often such tactics are combined in a mixed interrogation, which also makes it difficult to focus on a specific thought.

The psychological stress of those interrogated in the courtroom is higher than when visiting the office of an investigator or operational representative. The emotional factor increases the likelihood of contradictions. Judges can be susceptible to this influence when they see contradictions and uncertainty. A significant amount of information mentioned in the testimony at the preliminary investigation is forgotten, distorted, or missed by the time of the trial. Cross-examination can both sharpen such a moment and smooth it out. The purpose for which questions are asked is decisive. Often the goal is to identify intentional changes in testimony made on one’s own initiative or under pressure.

Judges are not very fond of cross-examination during sessions. The reason is simple - such actions often lead to getting bogged down in details, to lengthy discussions on minor details. It is likely that long interrogations will be used to tire the jury so that they lose the thread of reasoning.