Az Legal Bac
October 3, 2022
Bank Legal Trainee
October 3, 2022

Badgered Legal

A lawyer interviewed directly asks his witness, a layman with no legal training: “So John Doe was negligent?” Opposing counsel could raise an argumentative objection. In this context, “negligent” is a legal concept of art with a precise and narrow meaning, and the witness cannot reasonably answer the question without understanding the relevant law. Since counsel “argues” that John Doe led the witness negligently, the objection would be upheld and inappropriate statements removed from the minutes. A common misconception is that argumentative questions are only intended to get a witness to argue with the examiner. This error is due to a misunderstanding of the word “argument”. Argument can mean “a series of persuasive statements” (the meaning of the law discussed in this article), as well as a “verbal battle or disagreement.” An argumentative objection can therefore only be raised if the lawyer himself puts forward a legal argument under the pretext of asking a question. “Insulting the witness” is the right objection for a lawyer who angers or mocks a witness by asking offensive or mocking questions, perhaps in an attempt to elicit an emotional response. [2] The assistance provided by defence counsel protects a defendant from forfeiture of his or her rights if there is insufficient appreciation of what those rights are and how the decision to answer an examination could advance or compromise the exercise of those rights in the course of the criminal proceedings. A lawyer can advise his client on the legal and practical options available to him; the possible consequences, good and bad, if he chooses to discuss his case with the police; the likely impact of such a conversation on the resolution of the allegations against him; and an informed assessment of the best course of action in the circumstances. This protection goes far beyond mere protection against police abuse.

When I ask these questions, my goal is to make the jury understand that if I am aggressive or, in some cases, hostile to an opposing witness, they will not blame me personally or my client. I want them to understand that this is simply a search for the truth. If I cannot get the witness to answer my questions directly, I am legally obliged to continue my search for the truth. The Court of Appeal found that the father`s “insults” were not legally sufficient to support the issuance of the injunction. In addition, the Court of Appeal noted that the father`s “agitated” conduct did not support the family court`s finding that the father was involved in “abuse,” since the word “excited” was not intended to indicate that the father was acting violently or rudely, but rather that the father`s conduct showed that he feared losing contact with his child. a concern that the Court found commendable. Further, the Court of Appeal did not find that the mother “had a reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily harm” because conduct in which the mother`s blanket had been removed and she had not been given permission to leave the home with her child could not be considered conduct that placed her in a “reasonable concern about imminent serious bodily injury” in the circumstances. As it was not established that the father`s conduct constituted “abuse” within the meaning of the DVPA, the injunction issued by the family court was set aside. This legal term article is a heel. You can help Wikipedia by extending it. Such questions may be admissible and do not require legal expertise for a layman to answer, allowing the lawyer to testify about John Doe`s driving habits without explicitly using the legal term negligence. The remedy for violating the Sixth Amendment rule is the exclusion of evidence for statements thus obtained.413 And while the basis of the Sixth Amendment exclusion rule — protecting the right to a fair trial — differs from that of the Fourth Amendment rule — in order to deter unlawful police behavior — exceptions to the Fourth Amendment exclusion rule may also apply to the Sixth.

In Nix v. Williams, 414, the court ruled that the “unavoidable discovery” exception applied to prevent the exclusion of evidence obtained as a result of an interrogation that violated the defendant`s rights under the Sixth Amendment. “The exclusion of physical evidence that would inevitably have been discovered does not contribute to the integrity or fairness of a criminal trial. 415 In addition, an exception to the Sixth Amendment exclusion rule was recognized in order to indict the defendant`s testimony in court.416 In the U.S. legal system, an argumentative objection is an objection of evidence raised in response to a question that causes a witness to draw conclusions from the facts of the case. [1] He has just finished answering the defender`s questions in a pleasant exchange of questions and answers. In Montejo, the Court significantly weakened the right to a Sixth Amendment lawyer by using Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625 (1986).

Jackson had barred police from beginning questioning a criminal defendant after the defendant asked for a lawyer on a charge. Although the Court is very divided on this issue, it appears that a majority believes that the exclusion provisions are simply intended to punish and deter police misconduct.