If a hearing involves live testimony, you may end up asking questions of your own witness, of the other party, or of a professional such as an amicus attorney or a custody evaluator. These are not the same activity and confusing them is the commonest failure.
| Direct examination | Cross-examination | |
|---|---|---|
| Whose witness | Yours | Theirs |
| Your goal | Let them tell the story | Get short concessions and stop |
| Leading questions | Generally not allowed | Generally allowed, and preferred |
| Who should be talking | The witness | You |
| Question shape | Who, what, when, where, how | Statements ending in “correct?” |
Direct examination: do not lead
A leading question is one that suggests its own answer. “You were at the exchange on time, weren’t you?” is leading. “What time did you arrive?” is not.
On direct you generally may not lead your own witness, and it is the objection you will hear most. The fix is to start every question with one of six words.
Who…? What…? When…? Where…? Why…? How…?
Plus two that are almost always safe: “Describe…” and “Tell the Court…”
A clean direct on one small point looks like this. Notice that the witness is doing all the talking and the questions are almost boringly short.
Q: “Where were you on the evening of 14 March?”
Q: “Who else was there?”
Q: “What time did the children arrive?”
Q: “How do you remember the time?”
Q: “Describe what happened next.”
Start with who the witness is and how they know what they know. A judge who does not know why this person is worth listening to will not weigh what they say.
Testifying yourself
If you are representing yourself and you want to testify, you cannot exactly ask yourself questions. In practice a court will usually let you take the stand and give your account in narrative form. Ask first:
“Your Honor, since I’m representing myself, may I testify in narrative form?”
Then be disciplined about it, because nobody will be interrupting you to keep you on track. Decide in advance on three or four points, in order, with a document attached to each. Say them. Stop.
Cross-examination: short, closed, and brief
Cross is not an argument and it is not your chance to finally say everything to the other party. It is a series of small, closed questions that are hard to answer with anything but yes.
Q: “You signed the agreed order on 2 February, correct?”
Q: “The order says exchanges happen at 6pm on Fridays, correct?”
Q: “On 14 March you arrived at 7:40pm, correct?”
Q: “You didn’t call ahead, did you?”
Four questions. No adjectives. Every one of them a fact that can be checked against a document. Then sit down — without asking the fifth question, which is always some version of “so why did you do that?”
“Why” hands the witness an open microphone and an invitation to explain themselves sympathetically, in front of the person deciding your case. You have just spent four questions building a point; the fifth question is where people give it back. Establish the facts and let the judge draw the conclusion. If the conclusion needs saying out loud, say it in closing, when the witness cannot answer.
Other things that reliably go wrong on cross:
- Arguing with the answer. If they deny something, move to the document that contradicts them. Do not repeat the question louder.
- Asking a question you do not know the answer to. On cross, ask about things you can prove.
- Going on too long. A short cross that lands is worth far more than forty minutes that dilutes it.
- Making speeches with a question mark on the end. That draws an objection and, worse, it makes the witness look reasonable by comparison.
Objections you will hear, and what to do
| Objection | The problem | The fix, immediately |
|---|---|---|
| Leading | Your question contained its answer | Rephrase starting with who/what/when/where/why/how |
| Compound | Two questions in one | Ask the first half only |
| Asked and answered | You already covered it | Move on |
| Calls for speculation | You asked what someone else was thinking | Ask what the witness saw or heard instead |
| Argumentative | You are making a speech | Turn it into a single short factual question |
| Relevance | It does not bear on the issues | Say in one sentence what it goes to |
When you hear an objection: stop talking, wait for the ruling, and then either rephrase or move on. Do not carry on through it and do not argue about it unless the judge asks you to respond.
Making your own objections
You are allowed to object. Stand, say the word, say the ground, and stop.
“Objection, Your Honor — hearsay.”
“Objection, Your Honor — leading.”
“Objection, Your Honor — that calls for speculation.”
Two or three words of ground is enough; a paragraph of explanation is not an objection. And be sparing — objecting to everything irritates the bench and buries the two objections that mattered.
Objections are generally made at the time, not afterwards. If you sit through testimony you thought was improper and raise it at the end, you may have lost the point entirely. This is another reason the record matters — see the court reporter and the record.
Preparation that actually helps
- Write your questions out in full. You will not improvise well while frightened.
- One page per witness, questions numbered, exhibit numbers written in the margin.
- For each question, note what document proves the answer if it is denied.
- Read them aloud beforehand. Anything that takes more than one breath is too long.
- Decide in advance where you stop.
This page describes the ordinary shape of examination rather than quoting rule text; the rules on leading questions and the mode of interrogation live in the Texas Rules of Evidence, and individual judges run their courtrooms differently. Last reviewed 4 August 2026.