hockey-fights.com
Username Post: Court question? Any lawyers here?
phantomenforcer
superstar
Total Posts: 3528
*
Average Post Ranks%:             
User Rank%:                       
01-12-18 08:29 AM - Post#1708823    

I'm kidding, of course, as this is obviously directed to Kanrok.

I have recently had the pleasure of being a state's witness in a 1st degree murder trial as a result of my job duties.

I was there for the opening statements of the prosecution (the defense deferred, presumably until the state rests) and watched them question five witnesses ahead of me.

Based on my knowledge of the case it seems fairly open and shut guilty.

To wit, my question. Is it plausible for a defense team to phone it in for a paycheck when they know there is little hope of an acquittal? Granted, I have not heard the defense's case nor has anyone as the trial is still ongoing, but I seemed to notice inaccuracies and contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses before me that were not jumped on by the defense.

One witness in particular was the one right before me. He was the first law enforcement officer on scene. During his testimony he sounded exceedingly daft and made several contradictions and outright inaccuracies about who was on the scene before he arrived and after he arrived, but prior to any other law enforcement. I know this because I was there and he testified that the victim's fiance and 3 firefighters were the only ones on the scene when he barred further entry.

I know EMS is the forgotten ones, but I assume that the defense has a timeline of people on scene and a list of witnesses.

Anyway, they never question him on these inaccuracies during cross examination.

Even more mind boggling is that the deputy is no longer a deputy as he was dismissed for misconduct a few years ago. He was only on the job for about 4 years total. Remember, he sounded quite daft on the stand. I do not know the nature of the misconduct, but the defense never brought it up or questioned him about it.

Shouldn't they have questioned him about that as it would potentially call into question his credibility as a witness, especially being the first law enforcement on scene along with obvious inaccuracies in his testimony?

To further add to his daftness, as an aside, he went to the stand with several papers and answered the first few questions from the state while reading off the paper. The defense did pounce on this and were grated discovery of the papers and the deputy was not allowed to have them back while on the stand.

To me, it would seem that a proper defense could have dismantled his credibility on this case and brought into question all further evidence that was subsequently collected.

Perhaps I am wrong and that is why I'm asking here? Maybe I watch too much Law & Order.

Here's the link to the latest article on the trial in case you're interested:

Link
NOTE: You are viewing an individual Post. View the Entire Topic
FusionBB™ Version 3.2 | ©2003-2018 InteractivePHP, Inc.
Execution time: 0.063 seconds.   Total Queries: 40   Zlib Compression is on.
All times are (GMT-6.0). Current time is 07:03 AM
Top