The full text of this dissertation is available only to University of Leicester members. Please log in with your CFS username and password when prompted.The adversarial nature of criminal courts in the United States and the United Kingdom promotes a confrontational dynamic between competing attorneys that many have argued is detrimental to the pursuit of truth and justice. Of greatest concern are the questioning strategies used by attorneys—especially during cross-examination—which may be considered coercive, confusing and intimidating to witnesses. The literature suggests that these strategies not only affect the accuracy of witness testimony, but also alter the perception of fact-finders. Witnesses favorable to truth and justice may have both their testimony and credibility damaged by attorneys skilled in the art of language. This literature review questions the confounding effects of adversarial questioning strategies on truth and justice, and investigates whether the way in which witnesses are questioned in court ought to be revised.University of Leiceste
To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.