What is an acceptable method for establishing bias during cross-examination?

Establishing bias during cross-examination is a critical skill for attorneys, as it can significantly impact the credibility of a witness. The approach of asking about specific acts or interests is effective because it directly probes the motivations and relationships of the witness, allowing the attorney to uncover potential biases that could affect the witness's testimony. This method encourages the witness to reveal personal interests or experiences that may inform their perspective and credibility regarding the case at hand.

For instance, by inquiring into any financial interests, affiliations, or prior interactions the witness has with involved parties, the attorney can create doubt about the objectivity of the witness's testimony. This line of questioning is both relevant and permissible, aligning with evidentiary rules that allow for inquiry into matters that could influence a witness's credibility.

While other methods for establishing bias may have some merit, they do not operate as effectively within the constraints of evidentiary rules and the objectives of cross-examination. Summarizing a witness’s background, for example, can provide context but does not specifically target elements of bias. Presenting extrinsic evidence can be complicated and is generally not permitted to contradict prior testimony unless it falls within certain exceptions. Engaging in character attacks is often seen as unprofessional and counterproductive