When one party asks questions of its own witness during trial. This is called wh
ID: 418737 • Letter: W
Question
When one party asks questions of its own witness during trial. This is called which of the following? Direct exam Cross-exam Redirect exam Summary examination None of the above.Which of the following allows the defendant to win the case even if the plaintiff's allegations in the complaint are true? Summons Affirmative Defense Summary Defense Reply None of the choices are applicable.
Who may lack the ability to form a criminal intent? Minors under 18 years of age. Insane individuals. Intoxicated individuals. (Involuntary intoxication) All of the listed choices are correct. When one party asks questions of its own witness during trial. This is called which of the following? Direct exam Cross-exam Redirect exam Summary examination None of the above.
Which of the following allows the defendant to win the case even if the plaintiff's allegations in the complaint are true? Summons Affirmative Defense Summary Defense Reply None of the choices are applicable.
Who may lack the ability to form a criminal intent? Minors under 18 years of age. Insane individuals. Intoxicated individuals. (Involuntary intoxication) All of the listed choices are correct. When one party asks questions of its own witness during trial. This is called which of the following? Direct exam Cross-exam Redirect exam Summary examination None of the above.
Which of the following allows the defendant to win the case even if the plaintiff's allegations in the complaint are true? Summons Affirmative Defense Summary Defense Reply None of the choices are applicable. Which of the following allows the defendant to win the case even if the plaintiff's allegations in the complaint are true? Summons Affirmative Defense Summary Defense Reply None of the choices are applicable.
Who may lack the ability to form a criminal intent? Minors under 18 years of age. Insane individuals. Intoxicated individuals. (Involuntary intoxication) All of the listed choices are correct. Who may lack the ability to form a criminal intent? Minors under 18 years of age. Insane individuals. Intoxicated individuals. (Involuntary intoxication) All of the listed choices are correct.
Explanation / Answer
Direct Examination. This is usually done by the same counsel/lawyer who requested to summon the witness to the court. In usual circumstances, this is done to prove a crucial statement or claim by the party or in the interest of the defender. If the need arises, there is a provision as per law to call the witnesses to the court to record their statements. These statements are then used as considerations to give a direction to the case and finally for a sound judgment in the case.
Affirmative Defense. An affirmative defense are a set of facts/statements in one such scenario wherein if the defendant is able to prove these facts as correct, then the legal consequences for that unlawful conduct of the defendant can be over ruled by the court. For an example. A criminal suit was filed against person A by the parents of Person B for attempt to murder wherein the person lost his/her life. If the Defense counsel or the defendant himself as per the fact is able to prove that his actions were not intended to take life but were performed in self-defense then you can say it was a case of affirmative defense.
Who may lack the ability to form a criminal intent?
Minors under 18 years of age.
Insane individuals.
Intoxicated individuals. (Involuntary intoxication)
All of the listed choices are correct.
Answer. As per the law all the above statements construe to the lack of ability to form a criminal intent.
Minors under age of 18 years: This is also called as defense of infancy. This is because the law considers the minors as too young to commit a crime. However this feature is not classical and can differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Intoxication: As per law, if the person is not in his senses to judge his/her actions (due to involuntary intoxication). There is no question of abetting a crime. Again, this is subject to a thorough trial and can only be considered after necessary investigations.
Insane Individuals: There is a provision to recognize insanity for acquittal of an accused. However this is really hard one to prove and rarely used. It is so because in the court of law , everything is based on documentary evidences and it is pretty tough to prove a legal insanity.
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.