Legal Definitions - recross-examination

Recross-examination refers to a specific phase in a legal proceeding where a lawyer gets a second opportunity to question a witness. This questioning occurs after the opposing lawyer has conducted their "redirect examination." The primary purpose of recross-examination is to clarify or challenge any new information, explanations, or points that were introduced during the redirect examination, ensuring that all relevant aspects of the witness's testimony are thoroughly explored.

• Example 1: Car Accident Trial

  During a trial for a car accident, an eyewitness testifies. The plaintiff's lawyer conducts direct examination. The defense lawyer then cross-examines the witness, challenging their memory of the car's speed. On redirect examination, the plaintiff's lawyer asks the witness to confirm their vantage point by referencing a specific street sign they were standing near, introducing a new detail about the sign's visibility. The defense lawyer then conducts a recross-examination, asking the witness specifically about whether that street sign might have partially obstructed their view of the accident, directly addressing the new information brought up during redirect.

• Example 2: Business Contract Dispute

  In a lawsuit concerning a breach of contract, a company CEO testifies for the plaintiff. After the plaintiff's lawyer completes direct examination, the defense lawyer cross-examines the CEO, suggesting the CEO was aware of a specific clause that benefited the defense. On redirect examination, the plaintiff's lawyer asks the CEO to clarify that this particular clause was added to the contract *after* the initial negotiations and was not part of the original agreement discussed, thereby introducing a new timeline detail. The defense lawyer then performs a recross-examination, questioning the CEO about the exact date they first saw the revised contract containing this new clause, directly following up on the timeline information introduced during redirect.

• Example 3: Criminal Theft Case

  In a criminal trial for shoplifting, a store manager testifies for the prosecution about inventory discrepancies. The defense lawyer cross-examines the manager, implying that the discrepancies could be due to poor record-keeping rather than theft. During redirect examination, the prosecutor asks the manager to confirm that a recent internal audit *specifically ruled out* record-keeping errors as the cause of the missing items, introducing new evidence about the audit's findings. The defense lawyer then conducts a recross-examination, asking the manager detailed questions about the scope, methodology, and specific conclusions of that particular audit mentioned during redirect, aiming to challenge its thoroughness or relevance.