Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Mattfeld v. Nester, 32 N.W.2d 291 (1948)

Citation
Mattfeld v. Nester, 32 N.W.2d 291 (1948)
Parent Document
Mattfeld v. Nester, 32 N.W.2d 291 (1948)
Jurisdiction
Minnesota (state)
Effective Date
1948-04-16

Other Sections in This Document (117)

Full Text

728 chars
The object of all examination of witnesses, both direct and cross, is to elicit facts to show the truth. So long as cross-examination serves that purpose, it should not be restricted, but when it does not it should be stopped. Schuh v. Oil Well Supply Co. 50 Cal. App. 588, 195 P. 703; Roe v. State, 96 Fla. 723, 119 So. 118. For example, it would have been permissible here to elicit by cross-examination of Dr. Bigler any facts showing his bias, prejudice, and interest, if any; the basis, extent, and other matters concerning his knowledge of causes of death in cases like the instant one; the scientific basis, or lack of it, for any medical facts or rules which he used in making an inference from the facts upon which *127