3 See Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence §616.1 (2008) (“Although section 90.616 states that the court shall order witnesses excluded ‘so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses except as provided in subsection (2),’ it seems clear that sequestration prohibits more than merely preventing a witness from hearing another person testify. Wigmore suggests that …
Apr 05, 2016 · THE DEFENSE MOVES FOR AN ORDER TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY ABOUT OTHER WITNESSES’ VERACITY; ONE WITNESS CANNOT OPINE THAT ANOTHER IS LYING. The defendant hereby objects to questions directed at one witness, or at himself, concerning the veracity of another witness. It is improper for the prosecutor to question one witness …
When they're depicted on television, prosecutors and other lawyers are often aggressive and seem to make statements to, rather than ask questions of, witnesses. Is this how it goes in a real courtroom?
On direct examination, lawyers generally can't ask leading questions. A question is leading if it suggests the answer. For example, "You couldn't see very well, could you?" or, "Did you get to the scene at 8 p.m.?"
As part of their trial strategy, lawyers will call their witnesses in an order that’s most helpful for convincing the jury of the guilt or innocence of the defendant. However, the judge has the ultimate say over when witnesses testify.
Of course, witnesses aren’t the only ones who may refuse to testify based on their right against self-incrimination. Criminal defendants may choose not to testify in their own cases. However, they can’t pick and choose. Once they’ve decided to take the stand in their defense, they may not "take the Fifth" and refuse to answer proper questions from the prosecution during cross-examination.
Criminal trials follow the same basic order. Following opening statements, the prosecution presents its evidence, including its witnesses. For each witness, there may be two or more steps to the testimony: 1 Direct examination. First, the prosecutor will ask questions intended to bring out the witness’s story. 2 Cross-examination. The defendant’s lawyer will then question the witness in an effort to discredit or at least shed doubt on the testimony. Generally, questions should address matters covered during the direct examination, but the attorney may also ask questions related to the witness’s credibility. 3 Redirect and recross examination. After the cross-examination, the prosecutor may ask the witness more questions, usually to clarify parts of the testimony or address issues that came up during the cross. Then, the defense attorney also has another chance at further questioning, usually to discuss new subjects discussed during the redirect.
Sometimes, witness testimony is the only evidence that places the defendant at (or far from) the crime scene. Other times, witnesses provide the context that supports or undermines other evidence. Either way, there are general rules for how and when witnesses testify at criminal trials, the questions lawyers may ask them, ...
Cross-examination. The defendant’s lawyer will then question the witness in an effort to discredit or at least shed doubt on the testimony. Generally, questions should address matters covered during the direct examination, but the attorney may also ask questions related to the witness’s credibility.
The Judge’s Role in Controlling Witness Testimony. There are many rules about the types of questions that lawyers can ask witnesses. But in general, trial judges have the power to apply those rules and control many aspects of witness testimony, including: whether to allow a witness to testify.
The Right to Confront Witnesses. Criminal defendants have the right under the Sixth Amendment’s “confrontation clause” to be present when witnesses are testifying against them and to cross-examine those witnesses. There may be exceptions, however, when witnesses aren’t available to testify at trial.
A lawyer can always talk to his own client before the client testifies. There is, of course, not prohibition against a lawyer talking to his client prior to the client testifying. In fact, that is precisely what the lawyer is supposed to do.
Rule 4.2 states “ [i]n representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a party the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized by law to do so.”
Lawyers must allow their witnesses to tell their side of the story; they must not “lead” their witnesses through their story. This applies to Crown and Defence lawyers alike. Leading Questions are only allowed on cross examination. (b) asking for testimony that is hearsay. The questions must limit witnesses to tell facts they know ...
Both the Crown Prosecutor and the Defence Counsel are allowed to ask questions of witnesses during the trial. They are presented in court by either the Crown or Defence in order to help prove their case/argument.
After the Direct Examination is complete the opposing side is given an opportunity to ask their own questions, attacking the credibility of the testimony presented by the witness. During the Cross Examination of a witness, the lawyer is allowed to ask leading questions. As an opposing witness is not likely to provide the answers ...
The Crown Prosecutor or the Defence Counsel may object to a question or the admission of an exhibit or evidence. The judge may ask the person “on what rule of evidence are you relying on?” or “on what grounds are you making your objection.”
Other information is simply a recounting of someone else’s experiences. (c) asking for testimony that is immaterial and irrelevant. The information is not closely related to the case, and is therefore not important. (d) asking for an opinion or conclusion that the witness is not qualified to give.
The judge may respond in one of two ways. S/he may sustain the objection, which means that the objection is well supported and approved of by the judge. This prevents the line of questioning from continuing or evidence/testimony form being introduced.
Even a judge who is not serving as the finder of fact (i.e., when the case is to be decided by a jury) cannot be fair and impartial if he or she has personal knowledge of disputed facts, because the judge's evidentiary rulings (in pleadings and motions made by the parties) may be influenced by that knowledge.
If a judge is biased or prejudiced for or against a party or attorney, he cannot be fair and impartial in deciding the case. A party or attorney who believes such bias or prejudice exists must prove it with admissible evidence, and cannot base this belief on mere suspicion.
Tell the Truth. If your lawyer doubts you in the consultation, or doesn't think you have a case, while that may change over time, getting over an initial disbelief is very hard. You have to prove your case. Your attorney is not your witness. They are your advocate - but you are responsible for coming up with proof.
If you don't pay your lawyer on the day of trial, or however you have agreed to, then while he or she may be obligated by other ethical duties to do his/her best, they won't be motivated by sympathy for you, and it will show in court.
Well, truth be told, neither do I. The difference between lawyer and client is that the lawyer expects it to take a long time and understands. The client typically thinks it's unjustified. So, your hard truth is that each case takes time. Be patient.
While lawyers can certainly take your money and your time and we can file a case that will be very hard to win, if you don't care enough about your life to get a contract, the judge is not very likely to be on your side. At least, not automatically. Oral contracts are extremely hard to prove. What are the terms.
While juries usually get it right, sometimes, it's not about whether a particular matter is emotional or simple, complicated or straightforward. Sometimes people make decisions on who has the nicer suit, or who is more pleasant to deal with. So even if your case is good or even if it's not so strong.
As defined by ethical rules, a lawyer's duty to keep clients informed has two primary components: to advise the defendant of case developments (such as a prosecutor's offered plea bargain or locating an important defense witness), and. to respond reasonably promptly to a defendant's request for information.
The duty to keep clients informed rests on attorneys, not clients. But on the theory that if the attorney screws up it's the client who usually suffers, here are a couple of steps that defendants can take to try to secure effective communication with their lawyers: 1 Raise the issue early on. Establish, in advance, a clear understanding about case updates. If an attorney's practice is to initiate contact only when a development occurs, the attorney should communicate that to the client at the outset of the representation. If a client wants (and can pay for) regular updates regardless of whether developments have taken place, that too can be spelled out in advance—even included in a written retainer agreement. 2 Be reasonable. A defendant who phones his or her attorney with a request for information can indicate a willingness to speak with the lawyer's associate, secretary, or paralegal. The lawyer may be too tied up on other cases to return the call personally, but may have time to pass along information through an assistant. And because some lawyers have poor communication skills, the defendant may be better off getting information from an assistant than from the lawyer.