Court Proceedure

[sonjack2847]

My friends defence lawyer has told him that if he cross examines a witness he can only ask the same questions as the prosecutor has, is this true. I find it hard  to believe as that means that you really don`t have a defence. Any help on this matter will be greatfully appreciated.

[mogo51]

Sorry can tell you one way or the other, but would not surprise me.  On the upside it does stop any confusion in the matter.

[Jack Peterson]

Any help on this matter will be greatfully appreciated.

 

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1GIWA_enPH638PH638&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=philoippines%20law%20court%20cross%20examination

 

Kev Plenty to read of Rule of Evidence in the Philippines here mate, Best of Luck to your friend.

 

Jack :thumbsup:

Morning All

[sonjack2847]

 

Any help on this matter will be greatfully appreciated.

 

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1GIWA_enPH638PH638&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=philoippines%20law%20court%20cross%20examination

 

Kev Plenty to read of Rule of Evidence in the Philippines here mate, Best of Luck to your friend.

 

Jack :thumbsup:

Morning AllCoffee.gif

 

I`ve just sent that to him via FB.It doesn`t seem to say anything about not being able to ask different questions.If it wasn`t so far along in the trial I would recommend he get a new lawyer.Still the police have to testify soon and will dispell the evidence given by his accuser. 

[Jack Peterson]

I`ve just sent that to him via FB.It doesn`t seem to say anything about not being able to ask different questions.If it wasn`t so far along in the trial I would recommend he get a new lawyer.Still the police have to testify soon and will dispell the evidence given by his accuser. 

 

Ok so I have just Spoken to Edna, Azons Sister who as you may Remember is a Lawyer and she tells me That what the Friend has heard is Partly Correct but badly Told. You can only ask questions on Evidence already before the Court Introduced by the Prosecution. You can't Introduce any new Evidence unless it is disclosed. If the Prosecution have not named a 2nd Person in the crime you can't Cross examine about a 2nd Person but if you find a 2nd Person and have Proof then you can Introduce it to the Court and the Prosecution in the Proper way.  Then the Prosecution can Cross Examine that Evidence  As we know the Law is so very Peculiar but Any Question can be asked in Cross Examination Providing that The Evidence you are Examining has already been Given prior.

Hope you can Understand this?

 

Jack. :unsure:  

[sonjack2847]

 

I`ve just sent that to him via FB.It doesn`t seem to say anything about not being able to ask different questions.If it wasn`t so far along in the trial I would recommend he get a new lawyer.Still the police have to testify soon and will dispell the evidence given by his accuser. 

 

Ok so I have just Spoken to Edna, Azons Sister who as you may Remember is a Lawyer and she tells me That what the Friend has heard is Partly Correct but badly Told. You can only ask questions on Evidence already before the Court Introduced by the Prosecution. You can't Introduce any new Evidence unless it is disclosed. If the Prosecution have not named a 2nd Person in the crime you can't Cross examine about a 2nd Person but if you find a 2nd Person and have Proof then you can Introduce it to the Court and the Prosecution in the Proper way.  Then the Prosecution can Cross Examine that Evidence  As we know the Law is so very Peculiar but Any Question can be asked in Cross Examination Providing that The Evidence you are Examining has already been Given prior.

Hope you can Understand this?

 

Jack. :unsure:  

 

Yes I  understand and will relay that also to him.Thanks

[Steve & Myrlita]

 

I`ve just sent that to him via FB.It doesn`t seem to say anything about not being able to ask different questions.If it wasn`t so far along in the trial I would recommend he get a new lawyer.Still the police have to testify soon and will dispell the evidence given by his accuser. 

 

Ok so I have just Spoken to Edna, Azons Sister who as you may Remember is a Lawyer and she tells me That what the Friend has heard is Partly Correct but badly Told. You can only ask questions on Evidence already before the Court Introduced by the Prosecution. You can't Introduce any new Evidence unless it is disclosed. If the Prosecution have not named a 2nd Person in the crime you can't Cross examine about a 2nd Person but if you find a 2nd Person and have Proof then you can Introduce it to the Court and the Prosecution in the Proper way.  Then the Prosecution can Cross Examine that Evidence  As we know the Law is so very Peculiar but Any Question can be asked in Cross Examination Providing that The Evidence you are Examining has already been Given prior.

Hope you can Understand this?

 

Jack. :unsure:  

 

If proper "Discovery" was done, the Defense should already have the evidence. I have heard however that the Prosecution has been know to purposely withold evidence and then use it later. In the US, the DA's office would be in hot water but here? Who knows. They seem to make up their own rules as they go along.

[Jack Peterson]

If proper "Discovery" was done, the Defense should already have the evidence.

 

Steve I totally agree with you and it is The Rules of Evidence that is on the Agenda for the next Government to look into. The signing of the HR agreement brought this very thing up and  was one of the issues that came up on the Judicial Audit in 2013 but as we know anything can happen here. Deep pockets may help if a wealthy guy ever went to court to get amendments made to current Legislation which we all know is so Mickey Mouse.

 

Jack :thumbsup: