Cross-Examination Plan
Structured workflow for cross-examination plan: organise the supplied facts and documents, identify missing information, draft or analyse in stages, and verify facts, authorities and assumptions before use.
This is a reusable litigation prompt from the Litigation AI Prompt Repository. It is intended for Malaysian civil litigation but can be adapted by changing the placeholders. Use the Universal Litigator Control Block first where source discipline, adversarial review and authority verification matter.
Prompt
Prepare a cross-examination plan for `[WITNESS]` on behalf of `[PARTY]`. Begin with the propositions that must be established, not a list of questions. For each proposition identify: - why it matters to a pleaded issue; - the anticipated evidence; - prior inconsistent statement or objective document; - sequence of short leading questions; - exhibit or bundle reference; - likely answer or evasion; - follow-up and stopping point; - whether the proposition must be put to the witness. Organise the examination into controlled chapters. Distinguish impeachment points from affirmative facts required for the client’s case. Avoid questions whose probable answer is both unknown and harmful unless the strategic purpose is stated.
Repository section: Case Management and Trial Preparation
Stage: Trial preparation / trial
Suggested use: replace all square-bracket placeholders before running the prompt. For client-confidential materials, prefer a private or local model where available.
| Jurisdiction | Malaysia / adaptable |
| Practice Area | Civil Litigation |
| Party Role | Any / as prompt specifies |
| Lifecycle Stage | Trial preparation / trial |
| Document Type | Case Management and Trial Preparation |
| Prompt Number | 34 |
| Required Inputs | |
| Expected Output | Cross-Examination Plan output structured for litigation practice. |
| Reviewed On | 2026-07-26 |
| Version | 1.0 |
| Verification Checklist | Distinguish facts, allegations and assumptions., Cite the document/page for each material fact where possible., Identify missing or contradictory evidence., Do not invent authorities., Check every authority and quote only verified propositions., Separate proposed drafting from facts requiring client confirmation. |
