Membina keterangan: Pemeriksaan utama sebagai titik permulaan
The crux of an adversarial system as practiced in Malaysian courts is the adducing of evidence through the oral tradition. This usually involves examinations in three stages. A direct examination is conducted by the party that initiates the action, while a cross examination is carried out by the...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Journal of Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
2008
|
| Online Access: | http://journalarticle.ukm.my/1556/ http://journalarticle.ukm.my/1556/ http://journalarticle.ukm.my/1556/1/noraini.pdf |
| Summary: | The crux of an adversarial system as practiced in Malaysian courts is the adducing of
evidence through the oral tradition. This usually involves examinations in three stages.
A direct examination is conducted by the party that initiates the action, while a cross
examination is carried out by the opposing side. In the event where a re-examination is
necessary, the initiating party can re-examine his witness to ‘repair’ the damage done
during the cross-examination. Institutionalized courtroom questioning involves questions
posed by the lawyers with the answers to be provided for by the witnesses. Through
strategic questioning therefore, a witness summoned to court by a litigating party will
establish and then strengthen the version of the party that summon him. This paper is
based on a case study of a criminal case observed at the Kuala Lumpur Criminal High
Court 1, will delineate and then discuss several strategies employed by a counsel during
the direct examination of an expert witness, in his effort to build a narrative that is both
credible and believable |
|---|