In the context of court cases, what is cross-examination primarily intended to achieve?

Cross-examination is primarily intended to challenge and clarify witness testimony. This process occurs after a witness has provided their direct testimony, and it allows the opposing party to question the witness in order to test the reliability, accuracy, and completeness of their statements.

During cross-examination, the questioning attorney can highlight inconsistencies, unearth potential biases, or reveal gaps in a witness’s story. This helps the court assess the credibility of the witness and the reliability of the information provided. By grilling the witness or probing deeper into their responses, the attorney can aim to show that certain aspects of the witness’s account may be flawed or questionable.

The other options do not fully capture the essence of cross-examination. Establishing the credibility of the case relates more to the overall persuasive strategy of a legal argument rather than the specific function of cross-examination itself. Likewise, final arguments are made after all evidence has been presented and are distinct from the purpose of questioning witnesses. Providing the jury with an overview of the trial is not the goal of cross-examination; rather, this overview is typically given at pre-trial stages or in opening statements. Thus, the primary purpose of cross-examination is indeed to challenge and clarify witness testimony.