Before conducting the cross-examination of an expert witness, the criminal defense attorney must become an expert in forensic evidence as well as the basic principals of forensics . Case: United States v. Perez-Amaya
And there is enough developed law to warn prosecutors away from potential pitfalls, areas of cross-examination that can end in a mis-trial or reversal on appeal. “Are you calling the police witnesses liars?”
The problem can arise whether the lawyer is called as a witness on behalf of the client or is called by the opposing party. Determining whether or not such a conflict exists is primarily the responsibility of the lawyer involved. If there is a conflict of interest, the lawyer must secure the client's informed consent, confirmed in writing.
The cross examination contains interesting objections and responses, and an effective set of questions on many topics. One of the primary issues explored by the defense attorney is that while an expert can “match” a bullet or a cartridge to a gun, an expert cannot “match” a knife wound to a knife.
You can simply ask the Court to dismiss your attorney. You have a constitutional right to counsel, but you can waive that right and , unless the court determines that you are incompetent, you have the right to represent yourself. So you just need to inform the court that you would like to dismiss your attorney and represent yourself...
You can simply ask the Court to dismiss your attorney. You have a constitutional right to counsel, but you can waive that right and, unless the court determines that you are incompetent, you have the right to represent yourself.
The purpose of cross-examination is to create doubt about the truthfulness of the witness’s testimony, especially as it applies to the incidents that are at issue in the case.
Cross-examination questions are usually the opposite of direct examination questions. In a direct examination, you have to ask the witness open-ended questions that allow them to fully explain their answer. A cross- examination question should be very pointed and requires only a one-word answer, preferably “yes” or “no.”.
You can also ask questions that would show that the witness has been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty, which is known as a “crime involving moral turpitude.”. These types of convictions could make a judge think the witness is less believable (credible).
There are victims who have tried to kill themselves, who have collapsed after testifying.". Pirro said that a judge has the tough job of making sure that the rape suspect does not overly badger the accuser who is testifying.
When scolded by Judge Chet Tharpe for inappropriate behavior and improper questions, Harris told the judge, "I'm not a dog you need to bark orders at.". Tharpe has appointed a public defender for the defense, but he is also considering whether to declare a mistrial and start over. A new trial would also require the woman to repeat the details ...
Harris has a prior criminal record that includes convictions for grand theft, the Tampa Tribune reported. He also faces charges that two days after the alleged rape, he falsely impersonated an officer and beat a man while outside of a bar. At his opening statement earlier in the week, Harris said that he's "not a monster.".
Waving and pointing his finger, Tharpe told Harris that he could be held in contempt of the court. Harris defended himself and his line of questioning to the judge. "For the record, I'm making a good-faith effort to defend myself the best that I can," Harris said. "Maybe I should have prepared better for the questions.
In his black robe, with his arms crossed in front of him, the judge closely monitored Harris' line of questioning, and Tharpe's face became increasingly red throughout the cross-examination.
A new trial would also require the woman to repeat the details of the alleged attack. Harris faces felony charges including impersonating a police officer, sexual battery, aggravated assault and forced kidnapping. If convicted, he faces life in prison, according to court records.
The woman's name is being withheld because she may be a victim of a sex crime. Before asking for a lawyer, Harris, 31, infuriated the judge with his tactics as well as accusing the judge of trolling the internet during the trial.
Accusing a defendant of designing her/his testimony to fit what was testified to by other witnesses is called “tailoring.” Here, again, courts are divided nationally – the United States Supreme Court has allowed this, several state courts have found it improper for prosecutors to make accusations of tailoring based on the defendant’s constant attendance at trial [a constitutional right], and at least one seems to have approved it only when defense testimony may have opened the door. All that can be said is that caution is advised.
Often defendants do not testify (with some data sets putting the number below the 50% threshold for felony cases that go to trial), whether because they have little too say, there is ample impeachment evidence the jury will not hear if they remain silent, or their educational and developmental limitations make them poor candidates for taking the witness stand. And the proportion of defendants who do testify may vary region to region and crime to crime. All of these factors make cross of a criminal accused a less practiced art.
Jules Epstein. Director of Advocacy Programs. Prosecutors cross-examine much less frequently than do defense counsel, for good reason. Often defendants do not testify (with some data sets putting the number below the 50% threshold for felony cases that go to trial), whether because they have little too say, there is ample impeachment evidence ...
The problem can arise whether the lawyer is called as a witness on behalf of the client or is called by the opposing party. Determining whether or not such a conflict exists is primarily the responsibility of the lawyer involved. If there is a conflict of interest, the lawyer must secure the client's informed consent, confirmed in writing.
[1] Combining the roles of advocate and witness can prejudice the tribunal and the opposing party and can also involve a conflict of interest between the lawyer and client.
A witness is required to testify on the basis of personal knowledge, while an advocate is expected to explain and comment on evidence given by others. It may not be clear whether a statement by an advocate-witness should be taken as proof or as an analysis of the proof.
[2] The tribunal has proper objection when the trier of fact may be confused or misled by a lawyer serving as both advocate and witness. The opposing party has proper objection where the combination of roles may prejudice that party's rights in the litigation. A witness is required to testify on the basis of personal knowledge, while an advocate is expected to explain and comment on evidence given by others. It may not be clear whether a statement by an advocate-witness should be taken as proof or as an analysis of the proof.
Whether the tribunal is likely to be misled or the opposing party is likely to suffer prejudice depends on the nature of the case, the importance and probable tenor of the lawyer's testimony, and the probability that the lawyer's testimony will conflict with that of other witnesses.
Following are sample transcripts that include the state's direct examination as well the defense attorney's cross-examination of state experts. Before conducting the cross-examination of an expert witness, the criminal defense attorney must become an expert in forensic evidence as well as the basic principals of forensics .
Summary :Defense counsel James G. Connell conducts a thorough cross-examination of a government cooperating witness in a federal drug conspiracy case.
Most judges dispense with the traditional Q&A format and require narrative testimony, but this robs opposing counsel of the opportunity to object before information is disclosed to the jury. Alternatively, some judges make the defendant bring in a proxy to ask the questions.
John Edwards’ attorney Gregory Craig almost struck a plea bargain with prosecutors over charges of campaign-finance improprieties, but the government insisted on some jail time for the former senator. It now looks like the case could go to trial.
Edwards knows his case better than anyone, so he might be particularly good at constructing his defense and responding quickly to allegations made in the courtroom. It’s also possible that an impassioned Edwards could sway the jury. Plus, he’d save a lot of money.
Whether the defendant is a trained lawyer or not, most attorneys have long accepted the conventional wisdom that representing oneself in court, known as pro se representation, is a bad idea. There’s an old saying that a person who represents himself in court has a fool for a client.
Generally there are two reasons: (1) you feel like you know the facts of your case better than anyone else, including the lawyer that you hired; or (2) you say you can’t afford a lawyer. Okay, there may be a third reason, too— you’re insane. If you’re in the first category (or the third), there’s not much I could say that’s likely ...
Because of the myriad legal concepts and doctrines that are constantly at play during every trial —with which non-lawyers are not intimately familiar—in most circumstances, a layperson won’t know when a particular fact, even a very small one, could have a crucial impact on the outcome of the entire case. Sponsored.
If you’re in the first category (or the third), there’s not much I could say that’s likely to change your mind. For one reason, it’s usually true that you know the facts of your case better than your lawyer. You should. You were there. But that’s why lawyers are lawyers, and they’re not allowed to be witnesses ...