## **Learning Outcomes**

This article explains presentation of evidence rules on the form of questions, including:

- How the rules distinguish between direct and cross-examination, and when leading questions are permissible, restricted, or strategically useful in each setting.
- How to spot and label improper question forms—compound, argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence, calls for speculation, calls for a conclusion, and repetitive "asked and answered" questions—under bar-exam style fact patterns.
- How judicial control over the mode and order of interrogation (FRE-style Rule 611) affects the scope of cross-examination, the use of leading questions with hostile or vulnerable witnesses, and limits on harassing or confusing tactics.
- How to formulate precise objections and responsive arguments to question-form issues, preserving error for appeal while staying within the trial judge’s broad discretion.
- How to distinguish defective form from substantive evidentiary problems (such as relevance, hearsay, or lack of foundation), so that you choose the most accurate objection on multiple-choice questions.
- How to apply these doctrines quickly during MBE review and timed practice, using common question-pattern cues to predict the correct ruling—sustained or overruled—on each proposed objection.

## **MBE Syllabus**

For the MBE, you are required to understand presentation of evidence as it relates to the form of questions, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

- Leading questions: default rules, exceptions on direct, and broad use on cross-examination.
- Improper question forms: compound, argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence, calls for a conclusion, calls for speculation, and repetitive questions.
- Judicial control over the mode and order of examining witnesses (FRE-style Rule 611 concepts).
- Scope of cross-examination and protection of witnesses from harassment or confusion.

## **Test Your Knowledge**

_Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision._

1. Which of the following is generally NOT permitted on direct examination?  
   a) Leading questions  
   b) Open-ended questions  
   c) Questions about background  
   d) Questions to refresh recollection

2. On cross-examination, which type of question is most likely to be allowed?  
   a) Argumentative questions  
   b) Leading questions  
   c) Compound questions  
   d) Questions assuming facts not in evidence

3. When may leading questions be used on direct examination?  
   a) Never  
   b) Only with the court’s permission  
   c) For preliminary matters, with a child witness, or with a hostile witness  
   d) Only if the opposing party consents

4. Which of the following is an example of an improper question?  
   a) "Did you see the car?"  
   b) "Did you see and hear the car crash?"  
   c) "What happened next?"  
   d) "Where were you standing?"

## **Introduction**

The Federal Rules of Evidence, and parallel common-law principles, regulate _how_ lawyers may question witnesses. These rules do not just govern what evidence is admissible; they also control the **form of questions**.

The core goals are to:

- Elicit testimony in a clear, non-misleading way.
- Prevent one side from unfairly suggesting answers or harassing witnesses.
- Keep the jury focused on reliable facts rather than attorney argument.

Most MBE questions in this area ask you to decide whether a particular question is proper, whether an objection should be sustained or overruled, or whether a judge has abused discretion in controlling questioning. That requires you to distinguish:

- Proper vs. improper **forms** of questions; and
- The different standards for **direct** vs. **cross-examination**.

> **Key Term: Leading Question**  
> A question that suggests its own answer, typically by including the desired fact or conclusion within the question. It often calls for a "yes" or "no" answer that adopts the examiner’s wording.
>
> **Key Term: Hostile Witness**  
> A witness who is openly antagonistic, evasive, or aligned with an opposing party. Once a witness is declared hostile (or is an adverse party or identified with one), the examiner may use leading questions on direct.
>
> **Key Term: Compound Question**  
> A question that asks about two or more matters at once, making it unclear which part the witness is answering.
>
> **Key Term: Argumentative Question**  
> A question that is really an argument or challenge to the witness rather than a request for new factual information. It typically badgers, criticizes, or implies conclusions instead of eliciting testimony.
>
> **Key Term: Assumes Facts Not in Evidence**  
> A question that presumes the truth of a fact that has not yet been established by admissible evidence.
>
> **Key Term: Calls for a Conclusion**  
> A question that asks the witness to state an opinion or conclusion that is beyond the proper scope of that witness’s testimony or knowledge.
>
> **Key Term: Calls for Speculation**  
> A question that invites the witness to guess or hypothesize about matters outside the witness’s personal knowledge.
>
> **Key Term: Repetitive Question**  
> A question that has already been "asked and answered," and is repeated without a legitimate need for clarification.

### Judicial control over questioning

Under FRE-style Rule 611(a), the trial judge has broad discretion to control the **mode and order** of examining witnesses to:

- Make interrogation effective for determining the truth.
- Avoid wasting time and cumulative evidence.
- Protect witnesses from harassment, embarrassment, or confusion.

These decisions are reviewed on appeal under an **abuse of discretion** standard, and errors about question form are usually reversible only if a substantial right is affected and a timely objection was made.

Practically, that means the judge may:

- Limit or expand the scope of cross-examination.
- Forbid improper question forms (e.g., argumentative, compound).
- Allow leading questions in situations where they help the truth-finding process.

With that context, we turn to the specific rules on the form of questions.

### Leading Questions

Leading questions are the most heavily tested form issue on the MBE.

On **direct examination**, the general rule is that leading questions are **not permitted**, because the proponent is supposed to elicit the witness’s own account, not feed the witness the desired narrative.

On **cross-examination**, leading questions are **generally allowed**, because cross-exam is inherently adversarial and is designed to challenge the witness's testimony.

#### Leading questions on direct: default rule and exceptions

On direct, a leading question such as, "Isn’t it true that you saw the defendant run the red light?" is normally objectionable. The opponent should object: "Objection, leading," and the court should sustain.

However, there are well-recognized exceptions where leading on direct is proper, and the MBE regularly tests these:

- **Preliminary or undisputed matters**  
  Leading questions may be used to cover basic biographical or background facts that are not in dispute because they speed things along and do not risk unfair suggestion.
  - "You’re a nurse at City Hospital, correct?"
  - "You were on duty on April 1, 2024?"

- **Witnesses who need help communicating**  
  For child witnesses, very elderly or infirm witnesses, or others with communication difficulties, the judge may permit leading questions to facilitate coherent testimony.

- **Adverse, hostile, or aligned witnesses**  
  When a party calls:
  - An _adverse party_,
  - A witness identified with an adverse party (e.g., the adverse party’s employee or agent), or
  - A witness whom the court formally declares hostile,

  then leading questions on direct are allowed. The rationale is that such witnesses are functionally like witnesses on cross.

On the MBE, choices that say "leading questions are _never_ permitted on direct" are incorrect because they ignore these exceptions.

### **Worked Example 1.1**

**Question:** During direct examination, a lawyer asks, "Isn't it true that you saw the defendant at the scene of the crime?" The opposing counsel objects. Should the objection be sustained?

> **Answer:**  
> Yes. This is a leading question on direct examination, suggesting the answer within the question. Unless the witness is adverse, hostile, identified with the opposing party, or the question concerns preliminary, undisputed matters, leading questions are not permitted on direct.

### Scope and style of cross-examination

On cross-examination, leading questions are not just allowed—they are expected.

- **Scope**: Under FRE-style rules, cross is generally limited to:
  - The subject matter of direct examination, and
  - Matters affecting the witness’s credibility.

  The judge may allow broader cross in their discretion.

- **Form**: Leading questions are normally proper on cross, but **improper forms** (compound, argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence, etc.) are still objectionable even on cross.

So a key MBE move is to distinguish:

- Proper leading questions testing what the witness just said, vs.
- Improper argumentative or confusing questions, which should draw a sustained objection.

### Improper Forms of Questions

Certain question forms are considered improper because they confuse the witness, mislead the jury, or are unfair. They can be improper on **both direct and cross**.

#### Compound questions

A compound question requires more than one answer or combines multiple inquiries in a single sentence. This makes it unclear which part the witness is answering and creates a risk of misinterpretation.

Example of a compound question:

- "Did you leave the bar at 11 p.m., drive straight home, and call the police immediately?"

This actually asks three different things.

The proper practice is to break this into separate questions.

### **Worked Example 1.2**

**Question:** On cross-examination, a lawyer asks, "Did you see and hear the car crash, and did you call the police immediately afterward?" The opposing counsel objects that the question is compound. How should the court rule?

> **Answer:**  
> The objection should be sustained. The question combines multiple factual inquiries—whether the witness saw the crash, heard the crash, and called the police—into a single question. Each fact should be addressed separately to avoid confusion and to allow clear, specific answers.

#### Argumentative questions

Argumentative questions are not genuine attempts to elicit facts; they are lawyer argument disguised as questions. They often:

- Accuse the witness or comment on the credibility of the testimony.
- Ask "How dare you…" or "Do you expect this jury to believe…"
- Repeat the same point with a hostile tone.

Examples:

- "What makes you think anyone will believe that story?"
- "You made all this up to help your friend, didn’t you?"

These are objectionable as **argumentative**. The proper remedy is for the judge to sustain the objection and instruct counsel either to rephrase or to reserve argument for closing.

#### Questions that assume facts not in evidence

A question assumes facts not in evidence when it presumes the truth of a factual statement that has not yet been established in the record.

Example:

- "When did you stop embezzling client funds?" (Assumes that the witness _did_ embezzle.)

Such questions are improper because they smuggle unproven facts to the jury under the guise of a question. Counsel must first introduce admissible evidence of the assumed fact before basing questions on it.

Note: On cross of **experts**, hypothetical questions may be framed based on facts that are in evidence or that the expert has been made aware of; that is a different situation and is not "assuming facts not in evidence" in the improper sense tested on the MBE.

#### Questions calling for a conclusion

A question calls for a conclusion when it asks a witness (especially a lay witness) to provide legal or technical conclusions instead of factual observations.

Improper examples on direct of a lay witness:

- "Was the defendant negligent?"
- "Who was at fault for the accident?"
- "Did the contract create a partnership?"

These require legal analysis, not fact testimony. However, not every conclusion is improper. Under the rules on lay opinion, a witness may give short-hand conclusions that are:

- Rationally based on the witness’s perception, and
- Helpful to understanding the testimony.

For example:

- "He appeared drunk."
- "The car was going very fast."

Those are permissible lay opinions, not improper conclusions.

The MBE may give you a borderline question and ask whether it "calls for a conclusion." Focus on **who** is being asked and **what** qualifications they have.

#### Questions calling for speculation

A question calls for speculation when it asks the witness to guess about facts beyond the witness’s personal knowledge.

Improper examples:

- "Why did the manager fire your coworker?" (Unless the witness heard the explanation.)
- "What do you think the defendant was planning to do?"

Proper objections: "Objection, calls for speculation; lack of personal knowledge."

### **Worked Example 1.3**

**Question:** A lawyer asks, "Why did you think the manager was angry?" The opposing counsel objects. Is this question proper?

> **Answer:**  
> No. This question invites the witness to speculate about another person’s mental state and motives, which are not necessarily within the witness’s personal knowledge. The witness can testify to _what_ the manager did—tone of voice, words used, facial expressions—but not to _why_ the manager felt a certain way, unless the manager stated that reason.

#### Repetitive questions ("asked and answered")

If a question has already been asked and the witness has clearly answered, repeating the same question is objectionable as **repetitive** or **asked and answered**.

However:

- If the witness never actually answered, or
- If the previous answer was unclear or incomplete,

the court may allow counsel to re-ask or clarify.

This is a classic area where the judge’s discretion is especially broad. On the MBE, if a witness already gave a clear answer and counsel simply keeps pressing, an "asked and answered" objection should be sustained.

### Preserving and using objections to form

Objections to the _form_ of a question (e.g., leading, compound, argumentative) must generally be made **immediately**, before the witness answers. Failure to object usually waives the issue.

- If the court **sustains** the objection:
  - The question is not answered; the examiner should rephrase in a proper form.
- If the court **overrules** the objection:
  - The witness answers, and the objecting party has preserved the issue for appeal.

Courts rarely reverse for minor errors in question form unless:

- The error affected a substantial right, and
- The party preserved the issue by timely objection (or the error is "plain" and very serious).

### Court’s Discretion and Control

The trial judge’s control over questioning interacts closely with form-of-question rules.

The judge may:

- **Allow leading** beyond the usual limits if necessary to develop the testimony (e.g., frightened victim, confused witness).
- **Limit cross-examination** that strays far beyond the scope of direct or that devolves into harassment, repetition, or marginally relevant topics.
- **Intervene sua sponte** to stop argumentative or confusing questions, even without an objection.

On the MBE, assume that:

- Decisions about allowing leading questions for special witnesses, or about limiting repetitive or harassing questions, are within the judge’s discretion and will be upheld unless clearly unreasonable.

### **Worked Example 1.4**

**Question:** In a negligence trial, plaintiff’s counsel asks on cross-examination: "When did you stop texting while driving drunk?" Defense counsel objects. How should the court rule?

> **Answer:**  
> The objection should be sustained. The question improperly **assumes facts not in evidence**—that the witness was texting and that the witness was drunk while driving. Counsel must first introduce evidence of those facts before asking questions that presuppose them.

### **Worked Example 1.5**

**Question:** On cross-examination, defense counsel asks a witness, "You’re just making this up to help your friend, aren’t you?" Plaintiff’s counsel objects that the question is argumentative. Should the objection be sustained?

> **Answer:**  
> Yes. This question attacks the witness’s integrity and is essentially counsel’s argument about bias rather than a request for new facts. The proper way to show bias is to ask factual questions (e.g., "You and the defendant are close friends, correct?") and reserve argument for closing.

### **Worked Example 1.6**

**Question:** On direct examination, the witness has just testified, "The car was going fast." Counsel then asks, "Approximately how many miles per hour was the car going?" Opposing counsel objects that the question is repetitive. How should the court rule?

> **Answer:**  
> The objection should be overruled. Although the same general topic is being explored, the second question seeks clarification—an estimate of speed—that was not provided in the first answer. Clarifying questions are not improper repetition.

### Exam Warning

> Questions that assume facts not yet established in evidence are improper. On the MBE, watch for questions that _presuppose_ key disputed facts—those questions are objectionable even on cross-examination.

### Revision Tip

> When you see a question that feels like an attorney speech, insults the witness, or bundles multiple issues into one sentence, ask yourself: is the problem that it is **leading** (often acceptable on cross) or that it is **argumentative** or **compound** (improper at any stage)?

## **Key Point Checklist**

_This article has covered the following key knowledge points:_

- Leading questions are generally barred on direct examination but allowed on cross, with important exceptions for preliminary matters, witnesses needing assistance, and adverse or hostile witnesses.
- Compound questions, argumentative questions, questions assuming facts not in evidence, questions calling for improper conclusions, speculative questions, and repetitive "asked and answered" questions are improper forms subject to objection.
- Judges have broad discretion over the mode and order of questioning, including when to allow leading questions and when to cut off harassing, confusing, or repetitive questioning.
- Objections to the form of questions must be timely to preserve issues for appeal, and most form rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion.

## **Key Terms and Concepts**

- Leading Question
- Hostile Witness
- Compound Question
- Argumentative Question
- Assumes Facts Not in Evidence
- Calls for a Conclusion
- Calls for Speculation
- Repetitive Question

Presentation of evidence - Form of questions