It has been held to be reversible error for an Illinois trial judge to refuse redirect examination to a plaintiff who has been impeached on cross examination.1 The scope of redirect examination is generally limited to an inquiry into matters touched upon during the preceding cross examination. Ordinarily it should not cover matters which could have been brought out during direct examination. It is, however, within the discretion of the trial court to permit questions which touch upon new matter not brought out on direct examination or on cross examination on their accident page.
In the City of Springfield v. Dalbey,2 the Supreme Court ruled in a condemnation case where the landowners attorney forgot to question his client on one tract of land upon which damages were sought that the trial Court had the discretion to permit questions in this area for the first time during the client’s redirect examination. The right to re-examine a witness about a matter omitted through forgetfulness is discretionary,3 but the essential factor determining when discretion should be exercised is the degree of relevance and the critical nature of the omitted evidence. In Meyers v. Arnold,4 the Appellate Court affirmed the trial Court’s right to refuse redirect examination into new matters not elicited during cross examination where the evidence sought to be introduced was only marginally relevant to the main issues in the trial.
The purpose of redirect examination is to clarify and explain all inconsistencies, contradictions or improbabilities in the witness’ testimony. “On redirect examination a witness may be asked questions to bring out circumstances repelling unfavorable inferences raised on cross examination. Counsel has the right to ask any questions which may be proper to draw forth an explanation of the sense and meaning of the expressions used by the witness on cross examination.”5
On redirect examination the witness should be allowed to clear up ambiguities and to explain all of the facts that relate to his testimony on cross examination so that the “harmful” facts are viewed in context and are not unfairly emphasized.