Pleading Not Guilty and Criminal Trials (1:VII): Difference between revisions
From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Pleading Not Guilty and Criminal Trials (1:VII) (view source)
Revision as of 07:28, 8 August 2024
, 8 August→3. Presentation of Prosecution's Case
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
Once a plea has been entered, witnesses will be excluded, and the trial begins. The Crown may start with an opening address, then call witnesses for examination and introduce any real evidence (objects, documents, etc.). Next, the defence may cross-examine the Crown witnesses. The Crown may then re-examine their witness, however, this re-examination is limited to clarifying or explaining answers given during cross-examination. During re-examination, any new material can only be entered with leave of the Court. If leave is granted, and new material is entered during re-examination, the defence will be given an opportunity to recross-examine on the new evidence (See: Earl J Levy, ''Examination of Witnesses in Criminal Cases''). | Once a plea has been entered, witnesses will be excluded, and the trial begins. The Crown may start with an opening address, then call witnesses for examination and introduce any real evidence (objects, documents, etc.). Next, the defence may cross-examine the Crown witnesses. The Crown may then re-examine their witness, however, this re-examination is limited to clarifying or explaining answers given during cross-examination. During re-examination, any new material can only be entered with leave of the Court. If leave is granted, and new material is entered during re-examination, the defence will be given an opportunity to recross-examine on the new evidence (See: Earl J Levy, ''Examination of Witnesses in Criminal Cases''). | ||
The two goals of cross-examination are to 1) secure any helpful, defence-supporting evidence to which the witness may agree, and 2) to challenge any evidence detrimental to the accused. Often, cross-examination is used to challenge the reliability and/or credibility of the witness’ evidence. The defence is entitled to cross-examine a witness on any issue that is relevant or material to the case and is entitled to substantial leeway in their manner of conducting cross-examination. The rule from [https:// | The two goals of cross-examination are to 1) secure any helpful, defence-supporting evidence to which the witness may agree, and 2) to challenge any evidence detrimental to the accused. Often, cross-examination is used to challenge the reliability and/or credibility of the witness’ evidence. The defence is entitled to cross-examine a witness on any issue that is relevant or material to the case and is entitled to substantial leeway in their manner of conducting cross-examination. The rule from [https://canlii.ca/t/h6kw6 ''Browne v Dunn'' (1893) 6 R 67, H.L], provides that the defence must put its case to each witness on cross-examination. This means that if there is a good possibility that the accused will testify in their own defence or the accused has a specific defence theory that they will argue at the end of their case, they must present the anticipated defence evidence or theory to each Crown witness and provide them the opportunity to comment upon that evidence or theory. Typically, this is done at the end of the defence‘s cross-examination of each witness with a number of statements starting with “I suggest to you that…” | ||
Reliability refers to a witness’s ability to perceive an event accurately, and later recall and describe that event with detail and precision. Reliability challenges can focus on the scene, lighting, visibility, intoxication, and any obstructions or distractions which may have affected the witness’s perception. | Reliability refers to a witness’s ability to perceive an event accurately, and later recall and describe that event with detail and precision. Reliability challenges can focus on the scene, lighting, visibility, intoxication, and any obstructions or distractions which may have affected the witness’s perception. | ||
| Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
Opinions from Non-Experts: | Opinions from Non-Experts: | ||
:::As a rule, witnesses should not make any inferences or state their opinion about what that evidence proves in their testimony (for example, “I think Steve was going grocery shopping because I saw him with an empty fabric grocery bag”). Instead, the witness should simply state “I saw Steve and, in his hands, he was holding an empty fabric grocery bag.” Conclusions drawn from what is seen or heard is for the trier of fact to draw, not the witness to opine. There are exceptions to these exceptions. For example, although generally the court does not permit non-expert opinion evidence, someone who is intimately familiar with a person’s appearance can, in certain situations, provide evidence that they recognise that person from surveillance photographs or video. | :::As a rule, witnesses should not make any inferences or state their opinion about what that evidence proves in their testimony (for example, “I think Steve was going grocery shopping because I saw him with an empty fabric grocery bag”). Instead, the witness should simply state “I saw Steve and, in his hands, he was holding an empty fabric grocery bag.” Conclusions drawn from what is seen or heard is for the trier of fact to draw, not the witness to opine. There are exceptions to these exceptions. For example, although generally the court does not permit non-expert opinion evidence, someone who is intimately familiar with a person’s appearance can, in certain situations, provide evidence that they recognise that person from surveillance photographs or video. | ||
=== 4. ''Challenging the Admissibility of Evidence'' === | === 4. ''Challenging the Admissibility of Evidence'' === | ||
