trial witnesses testimony
If a witness of a criminal trial recants on the stand, how would treating him/her hostile favor the attorney who called him/her?
<p>It's a valid method with witnesses unwilling to tell the truth, but I don't know how it would be useful. You'd at least need proof (s)he lied. And the jury naturally will trust more the witnesses called by the other side.</p>

<p>It's useful because <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_witness" rel="nofollow noreferrer">it allows</a> the examining party to ask <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading_questions" rel="nofollow noreferrer">leading questions</a>, which can be used to introduce information that the witness does not want to volunteer.  For example, on direct examination, it's not usually permissible to ask &quot;did you next see the defendant strike the victim?&quot;; instead, the question must be &quot;what did you see next?&quot;  A hostile witness may be expected to answer evasively by describing other things that were observable incident to the acts for which the defendant was charged, such as &quot;I saw a taxi picking up a passenger across the street.&quot;  Allowing leading questions gives the examiner more control over the narrative flow of the testimony and, therefore, over the facts that are entered into the record.</p>
<p>It also allows the examiner to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_impeachment" rel="nofollow noreferrer">impeach</a> the witness's testimony, calling into question its credibility.</p>
