The Advocate, Journal of the Nevada Trial Lawyer’s Association, December 2007 issue.

If you have tried enough cases, this has happened to you more than once.
 
You want to call the defendant, or an employee of the defendant, to establish a few facts.  You want to keep the testimony tight, and focused.  As the words “Isn’t it true that...” come out of your mouth, defense counsel jumps up and says, “Objection!  This is direct exam your honor.  He called the witness. He can’t use leading questions.”   And then, the judge grants the objection, and you’re left trying to figure out how to get the testimony you need without the defendant making speeches  because  “I thought you wanted  me to fully answer the question.” 
 
The subject in Nevada is governed by NRS 50.115 (4)(a) (b).  That statute states in relevant part:   “ . . . a party is entitled to call: an adverse party; or a witness identified with an adverse party, and interrogate by leading questions.  The attorney for the adverse party may employ leading questions in cross-examining the party or witness so called to the extent permissible if he had called that person on direct examination.”
 
So, as I read this rule, it says that in your case in chief, you certainly can call the “adverse party” or the “witness identified with an adverse party,” and that you may interrogate that person with leading questions.  Moreover, when the insurance defense lawyer takes his own client/friendly witness on “cross,” he may not use leading questions himself.
 
Or, to put it simply, whether or not you may use leading or non-leading questions does not depend upon whether it is direct exam or cross-exam, but rather, upon whether or not the particular witness is “an adverse party” or “witness identified with an adverse party.”
 
The Nevada Rules of Evidence are taken, in most part, from the Federal Rules of Evidence.  In this particular case, the Nevada Rule is seemingly taken from a slightly older version of the Federal Rules of Evidence.  The current version of Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 611, states in Subsection (c) that “when a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions.”
 
In the comments to 611(c) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the authors  state  that “permitting leading questions to be posed to such (adverse) witnesses makes sense since their predisposition means there is little risk they will be subject to the power of suggestion.”
 
The authors state that old case law had sometimes mistakenly defined “adverse party” as being only those parties listed in FRCP 43, which would mean essentially the defendant him or herself, and if a corporation, the officer, director or managing agent of the corporation.  Under the  Federal Rules of Evidence , they use the phrase “identified with an adverse party” to make clear that an “adverse party” meant more than the narrow definition under FRCP 43.  The authors of the comments say that a person “identified with an adverse party”  specifically includes  the employees of an adverse corporate defendant; or relatives, spouses, or girlfriends/boyfriends of the adverse party.
 
They stated that they would leave it to the trial court to decide who else might be “identified with an adverse party.”  I would suggest that defining a party “identified with an adverse party” means someone who presumably has a bias due to some relationship with the adverse party.
 
The Nevada Rule and the Federal Rule are different in one respect.  The Federal Rule goes on to add the word “hostile” in its list of persons who called on direct may be interrogated with leading questions.  The Nevada Rule does not have the word “hostile.”  I do not believe that this was something done intentionally by the drafters of Nevada’s evidentiary statutes; I believe they simply used an older version of the Federal Rules of Evidence and did not update it.  Nonetheless, the Federal Rule has the word “hostile” and the Nevada Rule does not.
 
The common law has always permitted an attorney who calls a witness on direct exam to use leading questions to a witness who is demonstrably “hostile.”  I think we have all seen on movies and television shows where someone like  Matlock asks the judge to “certify this witness as hostile.”  Although I personally do not recall seeing this done in a case in Nevada, I think what must be the case in courtrooms in other states is that attorneys have to have the witness “certified” as “hostile” before they can use leading questions on direct.  In any event, I think it is clear that under the common law, the trial judge has discretion to allow leading questions on direct exam of “hostile” witnesses.
 
So, to summarize, this is the law in Nevada.  If you called the actual named defendant, you can certainly use leading questions.  On “cross” the defense lawyer cannot use leading questions to answer your leading questions.
 
If you are suing a corporation, certainly if you call to the witness stand an employee of the corporation (he doesn’t have to be an officer or manager, just someone “identified” with the corporation, i.e. employee), then you should be allowed to use leading questions.
 
Spouses, relatives, and close friends of the named defendant are also in the category of “identified with the adverse party.”  You can use leading questions on direct with these folks.
 
Beyond these categories, then it will be discretionary with the trial court to determine whether or not the  witness is “hostile” to you.