Direct or cross when plaintiff's attorney calls defendant in their case-in-chief?

Personal Injury Law Threads
1

I’m prepping a transcript and trying to clarify what’s considered direct vs. cross-examination in this scenario:

  1. Plaintiff’s attorney calls the defendant during the plaintiff’s case-in-chief—judge called it direct but allowed some leading questions, which made it feel more like cross.
  2. Defense attorney questions the defendant during the plaintiff’s case—judge referred to it as redirect.
  3. During the defense case-in-chief, the defense attorney called the defendant, which was considered direct.
  4. Plaintiff’s attorney then questioned the defendant again during the defense case—judge called it recross.

Does anyone have thoughts on whether these are correct? Especially on the terms for the plaintiff’s questioning of the defendant during the defense’s case-in-chief? Any guidance on how to properly distinguish between cross and recross here would be helpful!

2

From my experience, when plaintiff’s attorney calls the defendant, it’s technically a direct, but often treated more like a cross with some leeway for leading questions since it’s the opposing party.

3

Olin said:
From my experience, when plaintiff’s attorney calls the defendant, it’s technically a direct, but often treated more like a cross with some leeway for leading questions since it’s the opposing party.

That makes sense—it’s the plaintiff’s case, but it does feel like cross.

4

@Niko
Right! Many judges will allow leading questions to avoid confusing the jury, especially with an opposing witness.

5

When the plaintiff questions the defendant during the defense’s case, it’s typically cross, not recross, because it’s based on the direct examination during the defense’s case.

6

Ainsley said:
When the plaintiff questions the defendant during the defense’s case, it’s typically cross, not recross, because it’s based on the direct examination during the defense’s case.

Thanks! I thought calling it recross was odd.

7

@Niko
It could be an appealable point if it affected the types of questions allowed.

8

Typically, the plaintiff’s questioning after the defense’s direct should be considered cross, especially if they’re challenging the defense’s narrative.

9

Amari said:
Typically, the plaintiff’s questioning after the defense’s direct should be considered cross, especially if they’re challenging the defense’s narrative.

Appreciate the confirmation! Makes things a bit clearer.

10

@Niko
Yeah, this would likely be standard in most jurisdictions.

11

Direct or cross often depends on context, but generally, plaintiff’s attorney questioning the defendant during defense’s case is cross.

12

Fraser said:
Direct or cross often depends on context, but generally, plaintiff’s attorney questioning the defendant during defense’s case is cross.

Agree. It helps keep the flow and boundaries of questioning clear.

13

For the transcript, just focus on accurately labeling based on question style—leading vs. open-ended. The judge’s label might be arguable if it affected strategy.

14

Marlon said:
For the transcript, just focus on accurately labeling based on question style—leading vs. open-ended. The judge’s label might be arguable if it affected strategy.

That’s great advice. Thank you!

15

@Niko
Glad to help. Hope it makes the transcript easier to prep!