They are hostile witnesses by nature and will usually erect vague and ambiguous answers to your questions. The website had a lot of detail. Normally, unless the witness is actually an opponent in the litigation or a hired expert witness for an opponent, the court will not allow the witness to be treated as a hostile witness until the witness exhibits hostility to the sponsoring lawyers positions in testimony with non-leading, open ended questioning. Inducements in cash and kind appear to play an important role in witnesses turning hostile. He, however, accepted that hostile witness and inordinate delay in trial came in the way of law. If a witness himself is incapacitated from acting as the eyes and ears of justice, the trial gets putrefied and paralysed, and can no longer constitute a fair trial.
As the oath of affirmation administration to the witnesses has become an empty formality and does not act as a deterrent against making false statements by witnesses, it is recommended by the Committee that a provision should be incorporated requiring the judge administering the oath or affirmation to caution the witness that he is in duty bound, under Section 8 of the Indian Oaths Act,1873, to speak the truth and that if he makes a false statement in violation of the oath or affirmation that has been administered to him, the court has the power to punish him for the offence of perjury and also to inform him of the punishment prescribed for the said offence. Not used very much at all. By giving evidence relating to the commission of an offence, he performs a sacred duty of assisting the court to discover the truth. In India it is merely one of the forms by which a party may be bound to speak the truth. Generally the reason is the unholy combination of money and muscle power, intimidation and monetary inducement. This means that, just because the witness is providing unhelpful or unfavorable evidence, it does not mean he is doing so in an effort to be vindictive.
Secondly, the law nowhere mentions, the need to declare a witness as 'hostile' before the provision can be invoked. If the person deposes falsely before such competent authority, he is liable for prosecution for giving false evidence under this section. This would not only increase the levels of reliability of the evidence but in turn help in speeding up the proceedings of the cases under trial. The essence of the question is asking the court to recognize that the lawyer has called a witness to the stand on direct examination that is hostile to the claim or defense. Prosecutor: Your honor, the State requests permission to treat the witness as hostile. Well-coached witnesses will fight you, but there are other techniques for dealing with that problem.
Under no circumstance do I want to give the doctor the opportunity to explain anything. A 'leading' question is one that suggests the answer desired by the lawyer. In other words it means that he is under legal obligation to speak the truth in view of the oath administered to him or because of the express provision of law, which binds him to speak the truth. Witness competence rules are legal rules that specify circumstances under persons are ineligible to serve as witnesses. If not granted, he can request again if the witness is, in fact, hostile to the initial questions. Society changes, so do its values. But, what is important is the competency of the authority before which the statement is made to administer the same.
Simpson was also allegedly upset over the tight dress that Nicole had apparently chosen to wear that day. However, it is always good to be prepared. Leading questions either suggest the answer or challenge the witness' testimony. The goal of leading questions is to solicit information the witness is otherwise going to be elusive in providing when asking open ended or less direct questions. He added that, the court cannot create its own evidence. It is somewhat less rigid than the English law. Criminal trials should not be reduced to be the mock trials or shadow boxing of fixed trials.
In such cases, when witnesses turn hostile, there is little chance of getting a conviction. He waits for the whole day and then finds the matter adjourned. Certain witnesses are assumed to be 'hostile' and therefore it isn't necessary to ask for permission to ask leading questions. Important Disclaimer: Answers and comments provided on Google Answers are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. It says that the leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop the witness? They want you to ask open ended questions so the witness can testify based on what they know instead of what the attorney tells them.
However, in a medical malpractice case here in New York, I have the ability and the legal right to call the doctors that you have sued and put them on as witnesses on our case. In general, a person called as a witness may not be cross-examined by the party calling him. Instead, attorneys are supposed to ask open-ended questions, and the witness can then answer with entirely unprovoked responses. Prosecutor: Well that is exactly what you told the police when they asked you about this the next day? Conclusion Thus we conclude all that could be inferred from this study is that we need to enact strict laws on witness protection keeping in mind the needs of the witnesses in our system. On direct examination, a lawyer generally may not 'lead the witness.
Who, what, when, where and why are not leading. I did tell the police that. It was rightly observed by Arijit Pasayat J. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. We hope you enjoy their answers.
Clark, who had called Kaelin as a witness for the prosecution, believed Kaelin was being evasive during his testimony, and so she asked Judge Ito to declare him a hostile witness. For example, a hostile witness can no longer be trusted and, as such, his own attorney can treat him as if he was working for the opposition, and can question him accordingly. And when he does appear, he is subjected to unchecked examination and cross-examination and finds himself in a hapless situation. Cosmetic changes just won't do much to deliver justice. It's actually a great site. Client, about what time did you leave the bar? Hence, sections 161, 162 and 344 have been amended by inserting new sections 164A and 344A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.