1. Oh no! Poor Mr.A was murdered by Mr.B. But hang on. Ms.C says she
saw B kill A. Mr.D says he heard Mr.A screaming for his life and begging Mr.B
not to kill him, and Mrs.E says, Ms.C came and told her that she saw Mr.A being
killed by B. Now tell me, whose evidence is considered as relevant evidence in
a trial?
-
All of these testimonies (Ms. C, Mr. D,
Mrs. E). Of course, the testimonies of all the people are relevant as they
speak of facts which relate to the murder of Mr.A.
2. Apart from deciding relevancy of the evidence, we have to decide,
which of these people's testimonies is actually admissible in a Court of law.
As prosecutor, you will now have to decide which ones will you actually use in
your case. Ms. C: I saw Mr. B killing Mr. A when I was passing by Mr.A's house
Mr.D: I was on my morning walk when I heard Mr.A shouting and begging Mr.B not
to kill Mrs.E: I had just finished breakfast when Ms. C came in all flustered
and scared and told me she saw Mr.B killing Mr.A.
-
Ms.C and Mr.D. So what if a piece of
evidence is relevant, it need not be admissible. Mrs. E's testimony in this
case is inadmissible because it is hearsay, which means that she does not
actually know if something or did not, but she only heard it so. Hearsay is
inadmissible because there is no way the other side can disprove a fact only
based on hearsay. But what about Mr.D? Even he only heard Mr.A screaming for
his life. However, there are exceptions to the rule of hearsay, one of which is
res gestae, or things said and done in the course of the transaction. Since,
Mr.D heard the words while the murder was happening, his testimony is covered under
the res gestae exception.
3. The prosecutor has closed and produced all his witnesses. The case
seems bleak for Mr.B, being accused for Mr.A's murder but wait, the defence has
a special witness..Mrs.B! Mrs. B says that Mr.B was with her all day, and could
not have possibly been at Mr. A's house when the murder happened! Is Mrs. B's
evidence relevant?
-
Yes. But of course, any evidence which
can show that an existing fact is actually false is relevant.
4. Mrs. B has just testified in the murder trial of her husband Mr.B,
that he was with her when he was supposed to have committed the murder of Mr.A,
the Public Prosecutor (or District Attorney if you are American), jumps up to
cross-examine. He asks Mrs. B whether or not her husband told her that he had
murdered Mr.A. Does Mrs. B need to answer this question.
-
No. Now, every question asked by the
counsel has to be answered by the witness and the judge can promise dire
consequences if he or she doesn' answer the question. The only exception is if
you are covered by some privilege such as marital , judicial, official or
professional privilege. Here, Mrs. B need not tell the Prosecutor what her
husband told her.
5. The prosecutor is just getting into his stride, cross-examining
Mrs.B, the wife of the murderer, Mr.B on her alibi that her husband was with
her at the time of the supposed murder. The prosecutor's next question is:
"Mrs.B, did your not husband go out to buy groceries on that day?"
"Of course”, she replies, "he goes out everyday" "Then I
put it to you that he used that time to kill Mr.A did he not Mrs.B?"
"Weelll..," she starts, "he didn't like him very much, and he
may have..." "Thank you Mrs. B. No further questions your
honour", says the Prosecutor with a sumg smile towards the defence
counsel, who shoud now ask permission to do what?
-
To cross-examine Mrs.B. Mrs.B has just
become a hostile witness to the defence itself, and the defence counsel will
now has the opportunity to cross examine Mrs.B to show that her most recent
testimony was false. However, Mrs.B's testimony is still valid and it is upto
the judge (or jury) to decide whether or not they have to believe her entirely
or what amount of her evidence they should take into consideration. Alas for
Mr.B, the evidence is too strong in his favour. He is convicted of murder.
<3 FADHLIN SAKINA <3
this is fun indeed
ReplyDelete