Crosswords1 min ago
Questioning Witnesses
I'm taking part in a mock trial as a lawyer, and during cross-examination it's quite important that I ask a witness about something said in the policeman's statement. The policeman's statement is going to be read out to the court (none of the facts are in dispute) but I think it may be done after I cross examine the witness.
Am I actually allowed to mention it before it's read out ot the court? Or shall just plough ahead anyway and not mention the Policeman's statement?
Thanks for any ideas.
Am I actually allowed to mention it before it's read out ot the court? Or shall just plough ahead anyway and not mention the Policeman's statement?
Thanks for any ideas.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Rusks. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.If I have understood this properly you want to cross examine a witness about something in the Police officers statement. Normally the witness would give evidence you would cross examine and then the court would hear the evidence of the next witness and so on.
I take it you are defending - there is no problem in refering to the Police mans statement but why are you not calling him to give evidence so that he can be cross examined as well
I take it you are defending - there is no problem in refering to the Police mans statement but why are you not calling him to give evidence so that he can be cross examined as well
There are some procedural errors in your proposal. You cannot cross-examine a witness about something in somebody else's statement (unless it is a dispute about the contents of the statement and the witness was present when it was made - which I don't think you are referring to here). Witnesses can only be examined on evidence they give - that is what they have seen or heard. They cannot be questioned about what other people say they have seen or heard.
You may make suggestions to them and these suggestions may be based upon evidence given by others.
You may make suggestions to them and these suggestions may be based upon evidence given by others.
Erm.. I'm afraid I didn't make myself clear. The policeman's statement is only going to be read out because none of the facts are in dispute, and to cross examine him would be pointless (this is in the competition rules).
I do have to ask the witness about what the policeman said, because it is about that witness. There is an inconsistency between the witness' and the policeman's statement, and the policeman's statement is true. (Again, competition rules dictate this). Therefore, I need to ask the witness about the inconsistency.
I do have to ask the witness about what the policeman said, because it is about that witness. There is an inconsistency between the witness' and the policeman's statement, and the policeman's statement is true. (Again, competition rules dictate this). Therefore, I need to ask the witness about the inconsistency.
-- answer removed --
Is the inconsistency material ? Are you suggesting that the inconsistency shows that the witness cannot be relied on ?
You can refer to the officers statement because it has been agreed and will be before the court. You have to frame the question carefully. You could end up giving the witness a chance to correct the inconstency if you are not careful
You can refer to the officers statement because it has been agreed and will be before the court. You have to frame the question carefully. You could end up giving the witness a chance to correct the inconstency if you are not careful