Monday, April 26, 2010

The Rights of the Accused


"Why is cross-examination so important? Because the jury is then able to carefully observe the demeanor of the witness as his version of the facts is being challenged through a rigorous cross-examination. The jury is better able to judge whether the witness is lying (which witnesses do sometimes) or telling the truth. As the U.S. Supreme Court put it Pointer v. Texas (1965),"

Can you think of a modern trial when we learned from this technique? Use an example, and analyze what you've learned.

9 comments:

  1. The reason that federal trials are required to be held in the state and district where the crime was committed is to ensure that federal officials don’t require a defendant to travel hundreds or thousands of miles away from where the witnesses probably reside and where the defendant might live. Among the most important rights is the right to confront the witnesses on whose testimony the government is relying to prosecute the accused. This right involves two important legal principles — hearsay and cross-examination.

    ReplyDelete
  2. When the lawyer for the plaintiff or the government has finished questioning a witness, the lawyer for the defendant may then cross-examine the witness. Cross-examination is generally limited to questioning only on matters that were raised during direct examination. Leading questions may be asked during cross-examination, since the purpose of cross-examination is to test the credibility of statements made during direct examination. Another reason for allowing leading questions is that the witness is usually being questioned by the lawyer who did not originally call him or her, so it is likely that the witness will resist any suggestion that is not true.
    http://www.abanet.org/publiced/courts/crossexam.html.

    ReplyDelete
  3. because the jury gets more time to analyze the person's respond to the questions and make a better judgement

    ReplyDelete
  4. In the book, we learnt a trial by doing a debt Arizona. vs Johnson. In this case, a driver that has a expired a insurance, and the driver was polled over by a police car, and one of policemen was searching a passenger, who in yellow and has been out off the jail just less than one year. The police searched the passenger by suspected that the passenger has a gun that would possibly to harm others, and police was asking for stepping out the car, and the passenger cooperated. As the result, there was a bag of illegal drugs that contained with the passenger, as the states court judges said, the passenger deserved in jail for another term. And the case went to the National Supreme Court. On this case, the point is was the justice constitutional or unconstitutional? On the debt between the students Johnson was not guilty, but the real final justice turned to Arizona State, has legal suspicions that to search anyone if the police said they want to .

    ReplyDelete
  5. The jury has most of the power in a trail its them who desicid who is gilty or not. You have to go to a trail no matter what if they call you to go and its not an easy thing to do, its you who has to desicid if the person is gilty or not. Like in the trail in Arizona with Johson but at the same time the cops pull you over for no reason just by the way you look. Some of the times the cops are not wrong its just that they can't find any evidence but if they do have evidence they take it with them to the trail and so it to the jury to prove that the person is the guilty one.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Supportive (Concession Based) Cross-Examination: This type of cross is employed when you want to ask questions and get answers that support and advance your case. In a supportive cross, you won't use your questions to attack, pillage, and plunder the witness. Instead, you use cross to obtain favorable information, e.g., admissions, fill-in-the-gaps in the story facts, etc., from the witness. Think about it. If you can develop favorable evidence from the opposition's witness, you can then argue, "Their own witness said (insert the testimony favorable to your position)." It adds credibility to your evidence if it comes from an opposing witness. If you are going to rely on the evidence from an opposition witness, it may not make sense to attack the credibility of that witness. Occasionally, the testimony on direct may be so helpful to your theory of the case that you simply have the witness repeat it on cross and pass the witness. In most instances, the favorable evidence that you will accrue from opposition witnesses will come in small increments. Seldom will you receive a single blockbuster answer that obliterates or skews the opposition's theory of the case; however, it does happen.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Among the legitimate purposes of government is the punishment of those who violate the rights of others through the commission of violent or forceful acts, such as murder, rape, robbery, theft, burglary, or trespass. As the Framers understood, however, the matter does not end there because an important inquiry immediately arises: How do we ensure that people are not convicted of crimes they haven’t committed? That’s the purpose of the Sixth Amendment — to protect the innocent from being convicted and punished.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I learn that the jury could blame you for anything you haven't done even if you say you didn't do it you need to have some evidence to proof that you're not the responsible one. I think that's unfair For example, if they find a gun at my house and see that it doesn't have my prints there still gone blame me for it even thought I didn't now that the gun was there thats unfair....BUT THATS JUST HOW LIFE IS UNFAIR...

    ReplyDelete
  9. A another trial we could learn from was a murder case that if you didn't use that technique you could let a real murder back to the street's and you are giving another chance to that person to kill another person. That's where the defenders and witnesses get used to solve this problem if they don't lie. If you are a real person and you care about other people safety you will help to bring that person to justic and that punishment that person diservse.

    ReplyDelete