1.  Generally

A leading question is one which by the way it is framed suggests what the answer is.  Questions which call for a "yes" or "no" answer are almost always considered leading.  Leading questions are not allowed on direct examination of a witness, with some exceptions.{footnote}FRE 611(c); Cal. Sec. 767.{/footnote}  They may be used on cross-examination, but not as a subterfuge for introducing inadmissible out-of-court statements.{footnote}Robbins v. Small, 371 F.2d 793 (1st Cir. 1967).{/footnote}

2.  When Leading Questions Allowed on Direct

See also CROSS-EXAMINATION
REDIRECT EXAMINATION.

The federal rules provide that leading questions should be allowed on direct examination only where necessary to develop a witness’ testimony.{footnote}FRE 611(c).

But see United States v. De Fiore, 720 F.2d 757 (2d Cir. 1983)(improper use of leading questions rarely prejudicial error).
 
{/footnote} 

2(a).  Background

Background testimony which does not go to the important issues in the case may be elicited with leading questions in order to expedite the trial. 

2(b).  Refreshing Recollection

Leading questions may also be used when necessary to refresh a witness’ recollection.{footnote}Roberson v. United States, 249 F.2d 737 (5th Cir. 1957).

Marchand v. Public Service Co., 65 A.2d 468 (N.H. 1949).{/footnote}  However, the witness’ recollection may not be "refreshed" with an inadmissable statement.{footnote} [2573]  CHECK United States v. Shoupe, 548 F.2d 636 (6th Cir. 1977).{/footnote}  See also REFRESHING RECOLLECTION.

2(c).  Hostile Witnesses

Leading questions may be used in questioning a hostile witness,{footnote}FRE 611(c).{/footnote} or a witness who is shown to have a bias against the questioning party.  Leading questions may be used, for example, when questioning an adverse party,{footnote}Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(b); FRE 611(c); Cal. Sec. 776; Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 110, & 2-1102.{/footnote} or someone associated with an adverse party,{footnote}Check Haney v. Mizell Memorial Hospital, 744 F.2d 1467 (11th Cir. 1984).{/footnote} such as a spouse, relative, employee or partner,{footnote}FRE 611(e); Cal. Sec. 776; Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 110, & 2-1102 ("officers, directors, managing agents or foremen").{/footnote} or a person for whose immediate benefit a suit is being brought or defended.{footnote}Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 110, & 2-1102.{/footnote}  An opposing party’s expert witness cannot be called as an adverse witness under this rule, however, unless they otherwise qualify as an adverse witness.{footnote}Tokar v. Crestwood Imports, Inc., 177 Ill. App. 3d 422, 532 N.E.2d 382 (1st Dist. 1988).{/footnote}

Whether a witness is adverse is generally determined by his or her relationship with the other party as of the date of trial, and thus former employees of the other party are not necessarily deemed adverse.{footnote}But see Frisch v. International Harvester, 33 Ill. App. 3d 507, 338 N.E.2d 90 (1st Dist. 1975)(long-time employee who retired during the trial deemed adverse).{/footnote}

Cross-examination of such witnesses by the party to whom they are "friendly" must generally be done without leading questions,{footnote}Cal. Sec. 776(b)(1).{/footnote} though this up to the trial court’s discretion.{footnote}Morvant v. Construction Aggregates Corp., 570 F.2d 626 (6th Cir. 1978).{/footnote}

2(d).  Special Witnesses

When necessary to elicit the testimony of a child or a witness who is frightened or intimidated, leading questions may be used.{footnote}Rotolo v. United States, 404 F.2d 316 (5th Cir. 1968); United States v. Nabors, 762 F.2d 642 (8th Cir. 1985)(child witness); United States v. Littelwind, 551 F.2d 244 (8th Cir. 1977).{/footnote}

2(e).  Examination by Court of Its Own Witness

The trial judge is permitted to call a witness to testify in a case, and may use leading questions in examining that witness.{footnote}FRE 614; Moore v. United States, 598 F.2d 439 (5th Cir. 1979); Cal. § 775.{/footnote}  See JUDGES.

2(f).  Waiver of Objection

Failure to object to counsel’s use of leading question waives the objection.{footnote}Kokesh v. American S.S. Co., 744 F.2d 1092 (6th Cir. 1984).{/footnote}