When laying down Foundation for the Case and examining in Chief, we dont ask leading questions. The purpose is to draw Competence as required bu Section 117 of the Evidence Act in Uganda. Authenticity, ability to identify the exhibit and elicit such information crucial to prove our case. Also to build capacity to destroy chances of our witness from being cross examined. You need to read Legal English by Willian R Mickay and Helen E Charlon to appreciate the position. The witness must be in position to tell the story the way it is. Asking leading questions is a sign of submitting from the bar. Lawyers dont give evidence but use witnesses to elicit such evidence that proves or destroys the establishments of ingridients of the offence or cause of action elements .
She (prosecutor asked the witness, where were at 4:00 o'clock and there was no objection. Isn't wrong how she asked him that question without date and month?
If the date was already discussed prior then it wouldn't be necessary to keep specifically saying the month and day. The case is about that specific day.
Leading questions on non-continuous issues, especially during the beginning of a witness' evidence chief, is generally admissible (Australian position).
It can be objected to because it is a vague question, irrelevant, and lacks specificity . Questions must be clear concise and direct to the factual basis of the case. The rational of building a case theory, theme, trial strategy etc comes in to play
the prosecutor asked a lot of leading questions in this examination in chief
When laying down Foundation for the Case and examining in Chief, we dont ask leading questions. The purpose is to draw Competence as required bu Section 117 of the Evidence Act in Uganda. Authenticity, ability to identify the exhibit and elicit such information crucial to prove our case. Also to build capacity to destroy chances of our witness from being cross examined. You need to read Legal English by Willian R Mickay and Helen E Charlon to appreciate the position. The witness must be in position to tell the story the way it is. Asking leading questions is a sign of submitting from the bar. Lawyers dont give evidence but use witnesses to elicit such evidence that proves or destroys the establishments of ingridients of the offence or cause of action elements .
cool
HHmm!it only has 106 subscribers and two comments
She (prosecutor asked the witness, where were at 4:00 o'clock and there was no objection. Isn't wrong how she asked him that question without date and month?
If the date was already discussed prior then it wouldn't be necessary to keep specifically saying the month and day. The case is about that specific day.
Leading questions on non-continuous issues, especially during the beginning of a witness' evidence chief, is generally admissible (Australian position).
It can be objected to because it is a vague question, irrelevant, and lacks specificity . Questions must be clear concise and direct to the factual basis of the case. The rational of building a case theory, theme, trial strategy etc comes in to play