Key Takeaway
New York courts balance trial judges' broad discretion to limit repetitive cross-examination with defendants' constitutional rights to present an effective defense.
Understanding the Boundaries of Cross-Examination in New York Courts
Cross-examination serves as a cornerstone of the adversarial legal system, allowing attorneys to test witness credibility and expose weaknesses in opposing testimony. However, trial judges must maintain courtroom efficiency and prevent abuse of this powerful tool. A recent decision from New York’s Appellate Term provides important guidance on when courts can appropriately restrict cross-examination without violating a defendant’s constitutional rights.
The tension between judicial economy and fair trial rights becomes particularly acute during lengthy criminal proceedings, where attorneys may attempt to wear down witnesses or confuse juries through repetitive questioning. Understanding these boundaries is crucial for both prosecutors and defense attorneys navigating complex evidence rules and witness examination procedures.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
People v Jackson (Miriam), 2017 NY Slip Op 50133(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2017)
“A trial court “has broad discretion to limit cross-examination when questions are repetitive, irrelevant or only marginally relevant, concern collateral issues, or threaten to mislead the jury” (People v Rivera, 98 AD3d 529, 529 ; see Delaware v Van Arsdall, 475 US 673, 679 ; People v Corby, 6 NY3d 231, 234-235 ; People v Arroyo, 131 AD3d 1257, 1258 ; People v Pena, 113 AD3d 701, 702 ; People v Stevens, 45 AD3d 610, 611 ). However, a court’s discretion in making such rulings “is circumscribed by the rules of evidence and the defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense”
This case gives you a perspective on the appropriate scope of
Key Takeaway
Trial judges possess significant authority to control cross-examination scope, but this power has constitutional limits. Courts can restrict questioning that is repetitive, irrelevant, or misleading, while still preserving defendants’ fundamental right to challenge witness testimony and present their defense effectively in criminal proceedings.
