INTRODUCTION

It's been said, "A good lawyer turns evidence into fact and fact into truth." Because they bear the
burden of proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt, prosecutors must call witnesses in every
trial. Examination in Chief is the keystone in the prosecution's arch. It is also important to the
defender who will call witnesses in support of the defensive theory. Direct examination is a
vastly overlooked skill. Unlike cross-examination, there is very little written material to guide
practitioners through the examination of their own witnesses. This is surprising because cases are
actually won or lost on the fruits of direct examination.

Examination in Chief is one of the most subtle and sophisticated forms of advocacy. It is subtle
because a good chief examination focuses entirely on the witness and their evidence. The
evidence should appear to be flowing effortlessly from the witness. It should look easy. Whereas
the witness should be memorable, the lawyer should not. Chief examination is sophisticated
advocacy because during its course counsel is actually presenting their case, while trying to
satisfy a multitude of objectives, such as maximizing the potential of each witness to present all
relevant evidence in as logical, credible, persuasive and accurate manner as possible, while
knitting all witnesses' evidence together in a coherent fashion in order to prove all the elements
of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. Examination in Chief thus becomes a starting point for
any litigation. In the adversarial system of our country, it becomes a tool of extracting truth from
the facts.
 FORMS OF EXAMINATION

There are three stages of examination of a witness as follows-

Examination-in-chief-The examination of a witness, by the party who calls him, shall be called
his examination-in-chief.
Cross-examination- The examination of a witness by the adverse party shall be called his cross-
examination.
Re-examination - The examination of a witness, subsequent to the cross-examination by the
party who called him.

Considering the stages one by one:

1. Examination in Chief - The first stage is where a witness is examined by the party who
has called it. In this stage, the goal of the party is to make the witness make statements
that prove the facts alleged by the party. The party asks questions, the responses to which
are expected to support the factual story submitted by the party and should be in their
favour.
2. Cross Examination – The second stage is where the witness is cross examined by the
opposite party. In this stage the goal of the party which is examining the witness is to
poke holes in the story of the witness with a view to discredit the evidence that the
witness has given. However, when it is intended to suggest to the court that the witness is
not speaking the truth on a particular point, it is necessary to direct his attention to it by
questions in this stage. The witness must then be given an opportunity to explain the
apparent contradictions he made while he is in the witness box and justify his stance.
3. Re-examination - The final stage, is where the witness is re examined by the party who
called the witness if, in the cross examination stage, inconvenient answers are given by
the witness. The goal in this stage is to nullify the effect of such answers and to re-
establish the credibility of the evidence given by the witness in the witness box.
 Questions which may be asked in examination-in-chief

Leading Questions

Witnesses should not be asked leading questions on disputed matters. There are two forms of
leading questions:

1. Questions that suggests the answer desired by the questioner, or

2. Questions that assume the existence of a disputed fact before the witness has testified about it.

The witness's answer is admissible, but entitled to little, if any, weight in the determination of a
critical issue. The trial judge, however, has discretion to relax the prohibition and permit a party
or his counsel to ask leading questions of a witness called by the party (much depends on
whether opposite party objects to use of leading questions). On material points, a party must not
lead their own witness, because there is a presumption that the witness is disposed to calling
counsel. On cross-examination, however, this is acceptable. There are also some possible
exceptions:

 Purpose of identifying persons or things - can point witness directly to them (e.g. to
establish qualifications).
 Where one witness is called to contradict another as to expression (e.g. did other witness
use a specific expression? Do you agree with it?)
 If circumstances show that a witness is not favourable to a party who called him and is
either hostile or unwilling to give evidence, or if a witness shows bias in favour of the
cross-examining party, the right to leading questions can be restrained (i.e. hostile
witness).
 Inability of a witness to answer questions that obviously arises from a defective memory
or complicated issue.
 With the court's leave, a witness having difficulty testifying because of youth, lack of
education, mental disability or other reason may be asked leading questions.