Are witnesses allowed to give private testimonies? Alice's grandpa Greg is on trial. Alice's testimony is crucial to get Greg convicted. But, for some reason or another, Alice doesn't want to appear in court as a witness in front of Greg to badmouth him. Is Alice allowed to give private testimony to the jury/judge without Greg finding out about it? If you want a bunch of example reasons for Alice to want to do so: She loves her grandpa and doesn't want to badmouth him to his face. She feels threatened by her grandpa and wants to remain anonymous to him while still giving testimony. She was raped by grandpa Greg and can't mentally bear to even look at him. As a follow-up question, does Alice electing for some sort of &quot;private&quot; testimony weaken the case against Greg in any way?
united-states The Sixth Amendment gives a defendant in a criminal case the right to “confront one’s accuser”, and the Supreme Court has taken a notably originalist view of this right, holding that this means face-to-face cross examination under virtually all circumstances. While there are some small exceptions related to minors and to witnesses who became unavoidably absent after giving a sworn statement (none of which could apply to Alice), and while the Supreme Court hasn’t explicitly ruled out cross examination over videoconference, the idea of anonymous testimony in a criminal case is unthinkable. Part of an effective cross examination is arguing why the witness’s testimony might be unreliable, and a defendant who didn’t know whose testimony it was would be hamstrung at that.
He was indicted on many charges including 1st degree rape. So your question is why the jury returned the specific verdict, and did not convict on all charges. There is no record of the jury deliberations, so the best we can conjecture is that they didn't find the other charges to have been proven, and in lieu of a tell-tale juror, we can't know what evidence persuaded the jury. He was convicted on counts of criminal sexual assault in the first degree and rape in the third degree, but acquitted of two counts of predatory sexual assault, and it is suggested by media who make suggestions that this is because the jury did not believe the testimony of Annabella Sciorra. The crime of third degree rape (the charge involving Jessica Mann) is when a person engages in nonconsensual sex with another person. The crime of first degree rape, a charge that he was acquitted on, is when a person subjects a victim to nonconsensual intercourse through forcible compulsion, or when they are incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless. A person is guilty of a criminal sexual act in the first degree if they engage in oral or anal sex with someone who is incapable of consent, or if they use forcible compulsion. The statutes are here, §130.00 ff.
united-states Generally, a witness cannot object to a question on the grounds that it fails to conform to a rule of evidence (e.g. hearsay). A witness can refuse to testify on a matter either due to the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, or on the grounds that some other privilege (e.g. attorney-client, clergy confession, spousal) applies. A witness can also say that they don't understand the question as phrased (either because it is complicated or because it contains terminology or concepts that the witness doesn't understand), or that the witness didn't hear the question, or that the witness forgot what the question was while the lawyers and judges were discussing whether it could be asked. This often results in the question being restated or rephrased. A witness may also answer a question by stating that there is no answer to the question as it is based upon a false premise (e.g. &quot;on which day of the week did you beat your wife?&quot;). And, if true, a witness can properly answer that they don't know the answer, either because they never knew or because they don't currently recall the answer.
This is normal. It only seems imbalanced because only the prosecutor has been able to call witnesses so far. Under Minnesota Rule of Evidence 611: Ordinarily leading questions should be permitted on cross-examination. When a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions. At this point, only the prosecution has put on its witnesses, so it hasn't had an opportunity cross examine anyone, and the defense has been able to lead because it has only been able to cross examine. Were the prosecutor to call the defendant's wife or mother or something like that, he would probably be permitted to use leading questions. And when the defense puts on its case, the roles will reverse: the defense attorneys will have to use open-ended questioning for any witness he calls, and the prosecutor will be able to use leading questions.
The burden of proof is always on the plaintiff (except for counterclaims brought by the defendant against the plaintiff). In your example, the businessman has to prove that he did not rape her.
if the witness ends up being not favorable to your case, then you can have the judge declare him to be a "hostile" witness, therefore allowing you to ask leading questions. This is not really accurate. A typically case where a witness would be called a "hostile witness" for leading question purposes would be a case where the plaintiff calls the defendant or someone closely affiliated with the defendant as a witness. The nature of the relationship and not the actual content of the testimony determines if someone is a hostile witness. Neutral third parties are not "hostile witnesses" for this purpose even if their testimony if not favorable to your case. The relevant Colorado Rule of Evidence which tracks the federal rule which is the model for the vast majority of states describes the rule as follows: RULE 611 Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation (a) Control by court. The court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to (1) make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth, (2) avoid needless consumption of time, and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment. (b) Scope of cross-examination. Cross-examination should be limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness. The court may, in the exercise of discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination. (c) Leading questions. Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop his testimony. Leading questions should be permitted on cross-examination. When a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions. A typical, run of the mill, example of a hostile witness who is not necessarily an adverse party or strictly identified with an adverse party would be the uncle of a criminal defendant, called by the prosecution, who is appearing to testify by subpoena because he was unwilling to testify voluntarily. See, e.g., Vigil v. People, 415 P.2d 863, 864 (Colo. 1966). Before the Federal Rules of Evidence were adopted, a variety of precise relationships to a defendant that would qualify you as a hostile witness were set out by rule or statute, and the Federal Rules of Evidence liberalized the practice of examining hostile witnesses with leading questions by making it a general standard, rather than a more detailed rule.
It is somewhat understated, because your silence can also be used against you. In Salinas v. Texas, defendant Salinas was &quot;just talking&quot; to police, not in custody, and his silence (as opposed to shock and outrage) at the question of whether shell casings found at the crime scene would match his shotgun. This &quot;adoptive admission&quot; was introduced as evidence against him. In order to prevent your silence from being used against you, you must invoke the 5th amendment. There are two exceptions to the rule that you must invoke the 5th to be protected by it. First, a criminal defendant need not take the stand and assert the privilege at their own trial. Second, a witness’s failure to invoke the privilege must be excused where governmental coercion makes their forfeiture of the privilege involuntary (Miranda). In lieu of coercion, you must preface your silence with an invocation of your 5th amendment rights.
Is an attorney permitted to ask questions like those in either paragraphs two and three? Yes. That does not mean that they will be considered relevant or even appropriate, though. Is the witness allowed to decline to answer such questions for reason of irrelevance, or other grounds? Yes. In general, though, it would be safer for the witness to state an objection (be it on the basis of irrelevance, confrontational, asked &amp; answered, as to form, etc.) and answer the question nonetheless, rather than simply refusing to answer it. By simply declining to answer a question regardless of the basis for refusal, the witness risks affording a crooked lawyer the opportunity to falsely generalize that the witness was uncooperative. One exception to the idea of "object-and-then-answer" is where some privilege is the alleged basis for the objection, since the substance of the answer could be such that it amounts to waiving the privilege even where that privilege is legitimate. The witness may also opt to answer the lawyer's irrelevant questions even without stating an objection. Some questions are so obviously irrelevant, dull, or stupid that a failure to raise an objection will be inconsequential. In such scenarios, raising objections can only lengthen the deposition transcript and make it harder to read. For a real-life example of deposition with plenty of dull questions, take a look at the transcript (which I split in parts one, two and three) of the 4-hour deposition where I myself was the witness (you can download the case file, almost in its entirety, from this page). You will notice that I did not raise objections during the deposition, the main reason being what I explained above: To avoid giving the opposing counsel an opportunity to falsely accuse me in court of being uncooperative during deposition. Furthermore, addressing the crook's futile questions (1) projects transparency and helps on the witness's part, and (2) precludes a false &amp; misleading impression as if the witness had something to hide. After all, wrongdoers are the ones most interested in eluding testimony in ways very similar to this other deposition. The reason of being of objections is precisely that the law "is aware" that, as a matter of fact, lawyers indulge in all kinds of abusive questions when taking sworn testimony --be it in trial or at deposition-- of a witness.