Short answer. Yes. Rule 132, Section 7 allows re-direct examination after cross-examination concludes, so the party who called the witness can explain or supplement answers given on cross. The court also has discretion to allow new matters not touched on cross-examination to be raised at this stage.
What the law says
After the cross-examination of the witness has been concluded, he or she may be re-examined by the party calling him or her to explain or supplement his or her answers given during the cross-examination.
Rule 132, Section 7 — Re. Read the full provision →
What the law says
On re-direct examination, questions on matters not dealt with during the cross-examination may be allowed by the court in its discretion.
Rule 132, Section 7 — Re. Read the full provision →
The core purpose: explain or supplement, not simply repeat
Once cross-examination has concluded, the witness may be re-examined by the party calling him or her to explain or supplement his or her answers given during the cross-examination. The core function is corrective and clarifying — re-direct exists so the calling party can address anything cross-examination left confusing, incomplete, or open to a misleading interpretation, not to simply have the witness restate their direct testimony a second time.
New ground, but only with the court's permission
Re-direct examination is not strictly limited to matters raised on cross. The rule allows the court, in its discretion, to permit questions on matters not dealt with during the cross-examination. This is discretionary rather than automatic — a party wanting to introduce a genuinely new topic at this stage is relying on the court's willingness to allow it, not on an unqualified right to expand the scope of the testimony at will.
Why timing this stage well matters
Because re-direct comes specifically in response to what happened on cross-examination, effective use of it usually means listening carefully to exactly what the opposing side drew out or implied, and then targeting the follow-up questions at repairing or clarifying that specific ground — rather than treating re-direct as a second chance to walk through the whole direct examination again. A lawyer who tries to use re-direct to introduce an entirely fresh line of testimony, unconnected to anything raised on cross, is asking the court to exercise a discretion it is not obligated to extend, and a well-prepared re-direct plan usually starts with notes taken during the cross-examination itself.
What comes after re-direct
Re-direct examination is not the final word on a witness's testimony. Once it concludes, the opposing party generally gets a further opportunity, called re-cross-examination, to respond to whatever new material came out during re-direct, continuing the structured back-and-forth that governs how an individual witness is examined from direct testimony through to the end of their appearance on the stand. That final stage is itself limited to what the re-direct examination actually opened up, keeping the whole sequence from drifting into an unbounded exchange.