Choose one of the stages of a criminal trial and in your own words describe the stage, noting its sequence in relation to other stages, the purpose of the stage, and any challenges. Find a criminal case and describe how the stage you chose was reflected in the criminal case.
The stage of a criminal trial that I have chosen is the "Cross-Examination" stage. Cross-examination usually takes place after the direct examination of a witness and before redirect examination.
The purpose of cross-examination is to allow the opposing party's attorney to question the witness who has already been examined by the attorney who called the witness. The goal of cross-examination is to challenge the credibility, accuracy, and consistency of the witness's testimony. It also allows the cross-examining attorney to elicit new information beneficial to their case or cast doubt on the witness's account. Cross-examination is an essential aspect of the adversarial process, as it helps ensure a fair and balanced presentation of evidence.
However, there are several challenges associated with cross-examination. One challenge is to effectively undermine the credibility of the witness without appearing aggressive or disrespectful, as it may alienate the judge or jury. Another challenge is dealing with evasive or uncooperative witnesses who try to avoid answering questions directly. The cross-examining attorney must also anticipate objections from opposing counsel and be prepared to respond appropriately.
To illustrate the reflection of cross-examination in a criminal case, we can consider the famous O.J. Simpson trial. In this case, during the cross-examination stage, the defense attorney sought to challenge the credibility of the prosecution's key witnesses, particularly detective Mark Fuhrman. The defense attorney focused on Fuhrman's history of racial bias and alleged misconduct, aiming to undermine his credibility and present a possible motive for planting evidence. Through cross-examination, the defense attorney was able to bring to light inconsistencies and gaps in the witness's testimony, casting doubt on the reliability of the prosecution's case. This highlighted the importance of effective cross-examination in challenging the prosecution's narrative and influencing the jury's decision.