Publication details
Cross-Examination Questioning: Lay People as Cross-Examiners
| Authors | |
|---|---|
| Year of publication | 2010 |
| Type | Chapter of a book |
| MU Faculty or unit | |
| Citation | |
| Description | The study deals with a quantitative analysis of cross-examination questions and a qualitative analysis of cross-examination strategies. The cross-examination questioning of a highly experienced counsel is contrasted with the cross-examination style of two pro se litigants who represent themselves in court. The data are drawn from a libel case McDonalds Corporation v. Helen Steel and David Morris. The author comes to the conclusion that the pro se litigants develop in inter-genre during the court proceedings and learn from the counsel to use more coercive questions. But their development remains unstable. |