What&#39;s the point of prohibiting leading questions when unfavorable answers can result in witness being declared hostile?
<p>From what I understand, during direct examination:</p>

<ul>
<li><p>It is assumed that the witness you called is favorable to your case, so you cannot ask them leading questions (in order to avoid coaxing them into giving the answers you want).</p></li>
<li><p>However, if the witness ends up being <em>not</em> favorable to your case, then you can have the judge declare him to be a "hostile" witness, therefore allowing you to ask leading questions.</p></li>
</ul>

<p>But then, what in the world is the point of prohibiting leading questions by default?<br>
If they're giving you favorable answers already, then you don't need to ask them leading questions. 
And if they're not, then you <em>can</em> ask them leading questions anyway, so what was the point of prohibiting that in the first place? I don't really understand the logic.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>if the witness ends up being not favorable to your case, then you can
  have the judge declare him to be a "hostile" witness, therefore
  allowing you to ask leading questions.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This is not really accurate.</p>

<p>A typically case where a witness would be called a "hostile witness" for leading question purposes would be a case where the plaintiff calls the defendant or someone closely affiliated with the defendant as a witness.</p>

<p>The nature of the relationship and not the actual content of the testimony determines if someone is a hostile witness. Neutral third parties are not "hostile witnesses" for this purpose even if their testimony if not favorable to your case.</p>

<p>The relevant Colorado Rule of Evidence which tracks the federal rule which is the model for the vast majority of states describes the rule as follows:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>RULE 611  Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation</p>
  
  <p>(a) Control by court. The court shall exercise reasonable control over
  the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence
  so as to (1) make the interrogation and presentation effective for the
  ascertainment of the truth, (2) avoid needless consumption of time,
  and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.</p>
  
  <p>(b) Scope of cross-examination. Cross-examination should be limited to
  the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the
  credibility of the witness. The court may, in the exercise of
  discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters as if on direct
  examination.</p>
  
  <p>(c) Leading questions. Leading questions should not be used on the
  direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop
  his testimony. Leading questions should be permitted on
  cross-examination. <strong>When a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse
  party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation
  may be by leading questions.</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>A typical, run of the mill, example of a hostile witness who is not necessarily an adverse party or strictly identified with an adverse party would be the uncle of a criminal defendant, called by the prosecution, who is appearing to testify by subpoena because he was unwilling to testify voluntarily. See, e.g., <em>Vigil v. People</em>, 415 P.2d 863, 864 (Colo. 1966).</p>

<p>Before the Federal Rules of Evidence were adopted, a variety of precise relationships to a defendant that would qualify you as a hostile witness were set out by rule or statute, and the Federal Rules of Evidence liberalized the practice of examining hostile witnesses with leading questions by making it a general standard, rather than a more detailed rule.</p>

evidence court witnesses