Home › Federal › Rules of Evidence › Rule 614

Court Rules Network • courtrules.net

Fed. R. Evid. 614

Not legal advice. Verify against official sources before relying on this text in any legal matter.

Rule 614 Court’s Calling or Examining a Witness

WITNESSES

← Previous Rule 613: Witness’s Prior Statement Next → Rule 615: Excluding Witnesses from the Courtroom; Preventing an Excluded Witness’s Access to Trial Testimony

Rule Text

(a) Calling.

The court may call a witness on its own or at a party’s request. Each party is entitled to cross-examine the witness.

(b) Examining.

The court may examine a witness regardless of who calls the witness.

A party may object to the court’s calling or examining a witness either at that time or at the next opportunity when the jury is not present.

Plain-English Summary (for reference only — not a substitute for the rule text above)

A judge has the power to call witnesses to testify, even if neither side in the case asked for that witness. The judge can also ask questions of any witness during a trial, no matter which side called that witness to the stand.

When a judge calls a witness, both sides still get the chance to cross-examine that person. This means both the defense and the prosecution (or both sides in a civil case) can ask the witness their own questions.

If a lawyer thinks the judge is wrong to call or question a witness, they can object. To avoid upsetting the jury, the lawyer can wait until the jury has left the room to raise that objection.

Summary generated March 09, 2026

Committee Notes

Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules

Subdivision (a). While exercised more frequently in criminal than in civil cases, the authority of the judge to call witnesses is well established. McCormick § 8, p. 14; Maguire, Weinstein, et al., Cases on Evidence 303–304 (5th ed. 1965); 9 Wigmore § 2484. One reason for the practice, the old rule against impeaching one’s own witness, no longer exists by virtue of Rule 607, supra. Other reasons remain, however, to justify the continuation of the practice of calling court’s witnesses. The right to cross-examine, with all it implies, is assured. The tendency of juries to associate a witness with the party calling him, regardless of technical aspects of vouching, is avoided. And the judge is not imprisoned within the case as made by the parties.

Subdivision (b). The authority of the judge to question witnesses is also well established. McCormick § 8, pp. 12–13; Maguire, Weinstein, et al., Cases on Evidence 737–739 (5th ed. 1965); 3 Wigmore § 784. The authority is, of course, abused when the judge abandons his proper role and assumes that of advocate, but the manner in which interrogation should be conducted and the proper extent of its exercise are not susceptible of formulation in a rule. The omission in no sense precludes courts of review from continuing to reverse for abuse.

Subdivision (c). The provision relating to objections is designed to relieve counsel of the embarrassment attendant upon objecting to questions by the judge in the presence of the jury, while at the same time assuring that objections are made in apt time to afford the opportunity to take possible corrective measures. Compare the “automatic” objection feature of Rule 605 when the judge is called as a witness.

Committee Notes on Rules—2011 Amendment

The language of Rule 614 has been amended as part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.

(, Jan. 2, 1975, ; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011.)

← Previous Rule 613: Witness’s Prior Statement Next → Rule 615: Excluding Witnesses from the Courtroom; Preventing an Excluded Witness’s Access to Trial Testimony