haha, I saw the fifth season! 1. sustain means that the objection is valid, and overruled means that the objection is invalid. 2. If the prosecutor of the prosecution raises an objection and the judge says that the objection is valid, the other lawyer can't raise this question, or he has to put it another way to achieve his purpose. Of course, it is not good for the other lawyer, because the questions first raised by the other lawyer are carefully prepared or pointed to the point. However, lawyers often have alternatives, so you can see that even if the judge says the objection is valid, lawyers can immediately ask the second question to achieve their goals. 3. No matter which side raises objections, it must follow certain rules, so you can see that in objection, there will be objections later to clarify which rule is based on. The following is a paper detailing cross-examination cross-examination and its rules, which is very good and you can refer to it. -----------------------research on cross-examination rules. The origin of Liu Lixia's disciplinary classification litigation system is that cross-examination is an important feature of adversarial trial. This paper focuses on the connotation of cross-examination rules and explores the theoretical roots behind them. These rules include: the stage of cross-examination. Keywords cross-examination, main inquiry, cross-examination, induced inquiry and witness writing year 23 cross-examination refers to the questioning of witnesses from a relative position led by the parties in the adversarial trial, including main inquiry, cross-examination, re-main inquiry and re-cross-examination. The concept of witness is different in common law countries and common law countries. In common law countries, witnesses include parties, appraisers and third parties who know the case and make statements to judicial organs, with a wide range. In civil law countries, the witness refers to the third person who knows the case and makes a statement to the judicial organ, excluding the parties and appraisers. Our country's law has the same provisions on the scope of witnesses as those in civil law countries, and it does not include the parties and experts. The witness in this paper uses the concept of witness in common law countries. Cross-examination uses two effective cognitive methods to discover the truth. First, the method of multi-angle observation, that is, the parties collect evidence from different angles, so as to collect the most comprehensive evidence and prove that the facts of the case are closest to the truth; Second, the method of questioning, that is, the parties look for faults in each other's evidence from a relative position for their own interests. Because the parties know the truth of the case best, they often hit the nail on the head, exposing the falsehood in the other party's evidence. Therefore, cross-examination is praised by some British and American scholars as the most effective way to discover the truth. China has basically established the overall framework of cross-examination system in legislation and its interpretation. It is stipulated that the subjects of cross-examination in court trial are: plaintiff, defendant, defender, litigation agent and other litigation participants; The subjects to be questioned are: defendant, victim, private prosecutor, plaintiff and defendant in incidental civil action, civil litigant, administrative litigant, general witness, expert witness, etc. The rules of cross-examination in court include: the stage of cross-examination, the order rule, the correlation rule, the prohibition of induced questioning rule, the witness protection rule, the objection rule and so on. However, the content of the above rules is brief and the operability is poor. There are still some problems in the practice of cross-examination in court trial in China, such as fewer witnesses appearing in court, which leads to a narrow range of cross-examination objects in court trial; In the limited cross-examination in the trial, there is still a lack of antagonism. The transformation of China's court trial system into confrontation system has become the general trend and the still choice of legislation. It is one of the characteristics of adversarial trial mode to establish a trial investigation method with questioning witnesses as the center and the main line, and physical evidence and documentary evidence are presented in the questioning witnesses. At present, strengthening and perfecting the rules of cross-examination has become an urgent task to further promote the reform of adversarial trial in China. Guided by the concept of fairness and efficiency, this paper absorbs the reasonable factors of cross-examination rules in Anglo-American law system, and combines the trial practice in China, focusing on the connotation of cross-examination rules and exploring the theoretical roots behind the rules, hoping to play a role in attracting jade. I. Stages and sequence rules of cross-examination 1. The first stage of cross-examination, that is, examination–in–chief, is also called direct examination, that is, the inquiry made by the applicant to his witness. Its purpose is to guide the witness to make a statement to the court clearly and correctly, which is beneficial to the facts of the case to be proved by the applicant. Generally, questions are asked by means of question and answer. Sometimes, in order to save time, in the case of witness's approval, oral questioning can also be replaced by written testimony of pre-trial questioning. The written testimony has been exchanged with the other party in the evidence display, and its content has been understood by the other party. 2. The second stage of cross-examination, that is, cross-examination, also known as inquiry, is the inquiry of the witness by the other party or his agent after the main inquiry. For example, in criminal proceedings, after the prosecution's main inquiry is over, the defense's inquiry about the prosecution witness is called counter-inquiry. In order to improve the efficiency of the trial, the scope of counter-questioning should be limited to the questions related to the contents of the main inquiry and the questions related to the integrity of witnesses. If the cross-examination goes beyond the above scope, it must be allowed by the court. There are two purposes of cross-questioning: first, to obtain a favorable statement for the cross-questioning party. That is, through induced questioning, the witness of the other party agrees with some facts or inferences that are beneficial to the counter-inquirer. There was a case in the United States in which the prosecution accused the defendant of biting off the victim's ear. At that time, the only witness was an upright and stubborn old man unknown to the prosecution. When the defense questioned the witness, the witness insisted that he only saw the defendant fighting with the victim, but did not see the defendant biting off the victim's ear. The witness looks honest and doesn't look like perjury, so it is difficult to determine whether the defendant bit off the victim's ear for a while. However, when the prosecutor asked in cross-examination, "You said you didn't see the defendant bite off the victim's ear, so what did you see?" The witness said, "Let me see, when I came from the other side of the road, yes, I saw an ear coming out of the defendant's mouth." In this case, the prosecution obtained the testimony in favor of itself through counter-questioning. Second, undermine the reliability of witness statements in the main inquiry. That is to say, by putting forward the witness's bad character, past criminal record, prejudice against one party, defects in perception or expression ability, and inconsistent statements before, the reliability of the witness is questioned and the falsehood in the witness's statement is revealed, so as to reduce the credibility of the witness's statement in the main inquiry. There was such a case in Japan. In the trial of a riot case, the witness claimed that he saw the defendant set fire to the police station and threw asphalt into the fire. The defense made the following counter-inquiry: the defender asked: "You said you could smell the asphalt, didn't you?" The witness replied: "Yes." Q: "Can you smell asphalt anywhere?" A: "Yes." Q: "So, suppose there is asphalt in this court, can you smell it?" A: "Of course." Q: "Now, because there is no asphalt in court, you can't smell it, can you?" Answer: "Yes, if there is asphalt, I can smell it wherever I put it." The defender immediately took a piece of asphalt out of his pocket and put it on the table, so the defendant was acquitted. This is a typical case of questioning the reliability of the testimony of the other party. In addition, after achieving the first goal, it may no longer question the reliability of witness statements. Because the credibility of the facts that are beneficial to the opposing witness is often higher than that of the same facts confirmed by the opposing witness. If you attack the reliability of the opposing witness, it will also destroy the basis of the facts that have been obtained in favor of yourself. When you can't have your cake and eat it, you can only choose one. 3. The third stage of cross-examination, that is, re-questioning and re-questioning is also called re-examination, or re-examination is called re-examination, that is, after the counter-examination, the evidential party asks the witness again. Because counter-questions are mostly induced questions, witnesses and experts only need to answer "yes" or "no", and there is no opportunity to supplement or explain the matters mentioned in counter-questions. And the second question is to give them an opportunity to supplement or explain. In order to ensure the efficiency of cross-examination, the content of re-examination is limited to the matters arising in counter-examination, and no new matters may be introduced without the permission of the judges. Therefore, the re-questioning has two opposite purposes to the counter-questioning: first, to supplement or explain some facts or inferences agreed by our own witnesses that are beneficial to the counter-questioning, so that the above statements can be transformed into their own. For example, in the cross-examination of the victim of a rape case, the defender made the victim admit that she didn't report the case to the police station until hours after she was rape 2, so as to prove that the victim's statement of rape was not credible. The prosecution used the re-questioning to get the victim to explain this. The prosecutor asked, "Why didn't you call the police station within 2 hours?" The victim replied, "I was worried about my reputation at that time, and I was afraid that the man was still in my house." Second, restore the reliability of witnesses destroyed by counter-questioning. For example, in a lawsuit involving speeding, the defendant's barrister asked the witness who witnessed the speeding, and his answer was as follows: Q: Mr. Li, did you see my client's car rush out of the detour at a high speed? A: Yes. Q: I believe your estimate of the speed of the car is 6 miles per hour. A: Almost. Q: Can you accurately judge the speed? A: Not bad. Q: Do you drive a car or motorcycle yourself? A: No. At this point, the counter-inquiry will not continue in this respect. But the shrewd barrister knows that the other party will save the last sentence for closing arguments. The other party will say: how can a witness accurately judge the speed of a car if he doesn't know how to drive it? Therefore, the barrister of the witness wants to make a remedy, and when he knows the facts/answers, he asks the witness, "What was your past and present job?" The witness replied, "I worked as a train driver for 12 years and recently retired." In this way, the remedy is successful, because the witness's work experience tells the judge or arbitrator that he has enough ability to judge the speed of the car. 4. The fourth stage of cross-examination, that is, re-cross-examination, also known as re-examination, refers to the re-examination of the witness by the other party after the re-examination. The purpose of further cross-examination is basically the same as that of cross-examination, that is, first, to obtain a new statement beneficial to the cross-examination. Second, destroy the reliability of the witness's statement in the re-examination But we should not repeat the questions in the counter-inquiry. The above are the four basic stages of cross-examination in turn. However, there are not only four stages of cross-examination. If the parties still need to ask questions, they can repeat the main inquiry and counter-inquiry (after each party has finished asking, they will give the other party a chance to ask. ), until the parties have nothing to ask. It doesn't matter who finally ends the inquiry. If the parties keep asking repetitive or irrelevant questions in order to finish the inquiry by themselves, the judges have the right to stop the inquiry. Not all cross-examination has to go through the above four stages. The first stage of cross-examination, that is, the main inquiry, is an essential procedure in cross-examination. But if the witness is insignificant, the other party may not cross-examine. Of course, there will be no stages such as re-questioning and re-questioning. Because questioning is a right of the party concerned, he can exercise it or give it up. Second, the prohibition of inductive questioning rules leading question refers to a questioning method in which the questioner contains the answer he wants in the question and implies that the interviewee answers according to the answer he wants. For example, the main inquirer asked, "That man is about 4 years old, right?" , this inquiry is an induced inquiry. The uninitiated question should be "How old is that person?" . The rule of prohibiting induced questioning is that induced questioning should not be used in the main inquiry unless it is necessary to develop the witness statement. In counter-questioning, inductive questions should generally be allowed. The reason for prohibiting the rule of induced inquiry is that induced inquiry generally contains the answer in the question, and the interviewee only needs to answer "yes" or "no". Because the inquirer who asked the leading question has put the answer on the witness's lips, if the witness has a tendency to support the inquirer, it is difficult for the judge to judge whether the witness made a true statement independently from memory or a false answer at will. However, in the main inquiry, in order to seek the truth or improve the efficiency of inquiry, there are also exceptions to the rule of prohibiting induced inquiry. Under the following circumstances, with the permission of the judges, an induced inquiry may be conducted: (1) When the introductory, preparatory and transitional facts that are not directly related to the disputed issue are involved, an induced inquiry may be conducted. For example, ask, "You work for Dahua Company, don't you?" . (2), hostile witnesses can ask leading questions. For example, in the trial of a traffic accident case, the prosecution asked the defendant's friend about the defendant's drunk driving. Q: "You drank a catty of white wine with the defendant at noon, right?" . (3) Inductive questioning can be conducted for witnesses with limited understanding or expression ability, such as mentally retarded people and children. (4) It is generally allowed to ask leading questions to appraisers. (5) For those witnesses who have exhausted their memories but obviously have additional relevant information, they can ask leading questions to awaken their memories. For example, ask, "Can you remember the names of other people who attended the meeting you just mentioned?" A: "No, I can't remember. I'm sure there are others present, but I just can't remember their names now. " Q: "Have you finished all the people present you remember?" A: "Yes, I'm afraid so. I just have a temporary memory disorder. " Q: "Your Honor, may I ask this witness a leading question about other people's names now?" The judge replied, "Yes." Q: "Would it help you if I guessed that Mr. Morton P. Leishness might have attended the meeting?" A: "You are right! I remember now, and Leshnis was there. " III. Relevance Rule Relevance evidence refers to the fact that tends to prove the influence on litigation judgment.