Also known as: examinations-in-chief · examination in chief · direct examination
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An initial questioning of a witness conducted by the party who called the witness to testify. The questioning establishes the witness's account before any opposing examination occurs and is subject to limits on leading questions and scope.
Emmett Egan called his plant manager to describe safety inspections at a factory. The manager testified on direct examination about monthly checks performed on specific equipment. On cross-examination opposing counsel asked about inspections at an unrelated facility. The court sustained an objection because the questions exceeded the subject matter covered during the manager's examination-in-chief.
Eduardo Enriquez testified on direct examination for the prosecution about a defendant's statements during an interview. Defense counsel moved for production of Enriquez's prior written summary of that interview. The court ordered the government to produce the statement because it related directly to the testimony given during the examination-in-chief.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Esther Eisenberg faced a motion to exclude her prior theft conviction. She preemptively disclosed the conviction herself during her examination-in-chief to reduce its sting on cross-examination. On appeal she could not challenge the denial of the motion because her choice to introduce the evidence during direct examination forfeited review.
Emanuel Escobar called a former employee of the defendant corporation. Because the witness remained identified with the adverse party Escobar used leading questions throughout the examination-in-chief to develop the testimony about company policies. The court permitted the leading form under the adverse-witness exception.
Eileen Epstein, an expert retained by the plaintiff, relied on a medical treatise during her examination-in-chief to support her opinion on causation. Opposing counsel later cross-examined her about additional statements in the same treatise. The court allowed the cross-examination because the expert had relied on the publication on direct examination.
Elise Everly gave statements to police describing an assault that had already occurred. The prosecution introduced those statements through Everly during her examination-in-chief. The court admitted the statements because they were made under circumstances indicating they were testimonial and the declarant was unavailable for cross-examination.
Examination-in-chief is the first questioning of a witness by the party who called the witness. Cross-examination follows and is conducted by the opposing party. Leading questions are ordinarily prohibited on examination-in-chief but permitted on cross-examination.
Leading questions are generally not permitted on examination-in-chief. They may be used when necessary to develop the witness's testimony or when the witness is hostile, an adverse party, or identified with an adverse party.
Cross-examination should not go beyond the subject matter of the examination-in-chief and matters affecting the witness's credibility. The court may allow additional inquiry as if on direct examination.
After a witness other than the defendant testifies on direct examination the court must order production of any prior statement of the witness that relates to the subject matter of the testimony upon motion by the opposing party.
…under official interrogation are an obvious substitute for live testimony, because they do precisely what a witness does on direct examination; they are inherently testimonial.[^maj-5] Both Indiana and the United States as amicus curiae argue that this case should be resolved much like Davis . For the reasons we find the…