This is just a short imaginary example.
-------
Prosecutor to Eye Witness : "Where is your flat situated?"
Witness : "My flat is situated opposite police station. Police station is just across road in front of my flat."
Prosecutor:"What happened that day?"
Witness: "I heard a shout from nearby flat. I came out from my flat. I saw accused killing my neighbour and running away".
Prosecutor: "Then what did you did?"
Witness :"I immediately went to police station to inform."
------
In Cross Examination:
Defence Lawyer :" After you saw murder, and before you went to police station, what did you do?"
Witness: "I went back in my flat and took a cup of tea and then I went to police station to inform."
-----
Now if case rests here, then at time of argument, defence lawyer will argue before Judge that witness is not reliable. After seeing murder, instead of calling police, he goes back in his own flat, coolly takes a cup of tea, and then goes to inform police. His conduct is not natural and he should not be believed.
-----
But if case does not rest there, prosecutor will ask permission to reexamine witness.
And then he will ask more questions about cup of tea.
------
Prosecutor: "What were you doing when you heard the shout?"
Witness : "I was about to take my cup of tea. But as I heard shout, I put back cup of tea on table to see what is happening. After seeing I was about to go to police station, but my wife said it will be omen if I go without finishing cup of tea. So I hurriedly finished cup of tea and went to police station."
-------
See, how one question changes the course of trial in courts. These are games wit. A lawyer has to think on his feet.
Haresh Raichura
26/06/14