COMPOUND (C)
FRE 611(a)
Compound questions are two questions posed as one. When a compound question is asked, the witness’s answer will usually be ambiguous and misleading to the jury.
Examples
- “Let’s look back to April 14th of law year. Where did you and the President go, what did you see, and why did you go there?”
- “Tell us what you saw while watching the play, also what you heard, and what you smelled.”
- “Did you go to the play that evening and sit next to Ms. Hale?”
- “Please tell us your relationship to this case and to the defendant.”
FRE 611
(a) Control by the Court; Purposes. The court should exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence so as to:
(1) make those procedures effective for determining the truth;
(2) avoid wasting time; and
(3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.
(b) Scope of Cross-Examination. Cross-examination should not go beyond the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the witness's credibility. The court may allow inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination.
(c) Leading Questions. Leading questions should not be used on direct examination except as necessary to develop the witness's testimony. Ordinarily, the court should allow leading questions:
(1) on cross-examination; and
(2) when a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party.
Summary
Rule 611 deals generally with the scope of a trial judge's authority to exercise reasonable control over the trial proceedings, including the mode of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence. The rule contemplates flexibility and discretion so that the truth will be ascertained and the interests of the public and the parties promoted. In short, the three main objectives of Rule 611 are to discover the truth in an efficient manner, avoid wasting time, and protect the witnesses from improper examination questions.
Possible Objections under Rule 611: Argumentative, Compound, Narrative, Leading, Mischaracterization, Nonresponsive, Asked & Answered, Vague, Facts not in Evidence
Case Law (Compound)
- U.S. v. Abair, 746 F.3d 260 (7th Cir. 2014) (prosecutor used vague, confusing and highly improper compound questions)
- U.S. v. Smith, 354 F.3d 390 (5th Cir. 2003) (government's attorney asked: “Are you aware that two weeks ago, your wife called Keisha and Meredith [and] asked if they would testify today that Josh Booty was at Kristenwood on January 23rd, as late as 8:00 o'clock?” witness responded: “Yes”; court found question to be improper because it was impossible for jury to determine which part of the question witness was saying “Yes” to)
- U.S. v. Matthews, 222 F.3d 305 (7th Cir. 2000) (compound nature of questions made witness testimony unclear).
- U.S. v. Watson, 171 F.3d 695 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (“Mr. Thomas, you believe that you know Watson’s girlfriend, Tyra Jackson, right?” was ruled as a compound question because attorney effectively asked whether witness knew Ms. Jackson and whether witness knew Ms. Jackson to be defendant’s girlfriend)