Can a witness lodge an objection in response to a question? Suppose that a lawyer asks a question that may breach some court protocol. Is it acceptable for a witness to turn to the judge and say &quot;Objection!&quot; and possibly go on to explain the nature of the objection, whereupon the judge makes a ruling?
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.
If the question asks, "did you do X" where X is or includes a crime that you could be criminally prosecuted for, you can invoke the 5th amendment in refusing to answer that. I have seen that done and seen that objection to the question sustained in court. However, if admitting to X would provide only civil liability, then the 5th would not apply. At trial, you may also have to take care not to give direct testimony on things that are so closely related that you "open the door" to being required to answer that question. For example, you can't say "I don't owe because I did X" and then expect to not have to answer "So just to be clear, did you do X?" Also, depending on context, invoking the 5th might cause a jury to view your testimony more skeptically (cpast points out that "For civil cases, adverse inferences based on pleading the fifth are totally okay"), and if that's going to come up you should ask your attorney about whether or not it'd be a good idea strategically.
A warrant for the arrest of the person on contempt charges could be issued although this probably wouldn't be a valid basis for extradition and instead would only be enforced if that person came to a place where the court has territorial jurisdiction. The person held in contempt could be fined, with the fine reduced to a money judgment, and the judgment could be enforced against any assets or income of the person held in contempt that are, or are in the future, within the jurisdiction of the court. The money judgment could also be domesticated to a jurisdiction where the witness has assets to enforce the judgment through the local courts there. If the witness is a party to the case, or is in some close relationship with a party to the case such that the party ought to be able to exert some control or influence of the witness, sanctions related to the case itself could be imposed. The testimony of the witness could be disregarded as a sanction if appropriate. If the witness were testifying involuntarily pursuant to letters rogatory (which is basically a subpoena from a jurisdiction where the witness is not located that is domesticated in the jurisdiction where the witness is located by a local court in accordance with local law), the court issuing the letter rogatory could sanction the witness according to domestic law for contempt of court for violating the commands issued in connection with the letters rogatory. A simple declaration that a person was in contempt of court could sometimes have collateral consequences for that person, for example, in loan applications or background checks or violating the term of some contract that was the basis of the obligation of the witness to testify, or in connection with a plea agreement that called for that person's testimony (possibly in anther jurisdiction). Courts have some discretion to fashion custom remedies in unique situations in response to someone's contempt of court.
Normally, the prosecution case will not rely upon the testimony of the defendant. Instead, the prosecution will call all of its witnesses until its evidentiary case is complete. Then, the defense case opens and it may call witnesses. The defense is not obligated to call all of the witnesses that it stated that it anticipated that it would call prior to trial and the jury doesn't know which witnesses the parties said that they anticipated that they were going to call and didn't call. Until the defense case is closed, the defendant can call himself or herself as a witness if he or she wishes to do so, but is not obligated to do so. Once a defendant starts testifying (generally in his or her own case) he or she has generally waived the Fifth Amendment right not to testify. So, the prosecution may cross-examine the defendant in this situation. But since the prosecution's case is usually already closed at this point, the prosecution's cross-examination is limited to the scope of the defendant's testimony under questions from his or her own lawyer (there are some nuances of how this is done when the defendant is self-represented and has no lawyer). The prosecution cannot expand the scope of questioning of the defendant to new topic areas. I can imagine deviations from this pattern in odd circumstances, but they would be very rare.
Was/is it permissible for judges in the US to talk ex-parte like that? No. Ex parte interactions of that sort are not allowed. See, for instance, Disciplinary Counsel v. Bachman, 2020-Ohio-732 (Dec. 18, 2020) and Maze v. Judicial Conduct Commission, 2019-SC-0691-RR (Dec. 17, 2020). An example of less recent decision but with a reporter citation number is Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Bozeman, 302 So.3d 1217 (2020). For situations of imminent risk of irreparable harm, procedural law provides for ex parte motions and ex parte petitions, such as this granted petition for Personal Protection Order. See M[ichigan]CR 3.7003(G). But the scenarios you depict fall short of the necessity for which ex parte provisions are intended. do the above scenes in the movies essentially portray judicial misconduct? Yes. A judge's house is inappropriate for communicating, let alone ex parte, his ruling (I am not knowledgeable of the films but my understanding of your description is that that judge made the ruling on the application). As for The Untouchables, any evidence of jurors' &amp; judges' conflict of interest and likely bias has to be filed in court and comply with procedural law so that all parties have an opportunity to litigate the matter.
The question is oddly phrased: The law does not give allowances for its violation. Many laws have exceptions. E.g., the law against killing endangered animals contains an exception for defensive killings. Perhaps you are thinking of safe harbors? For example, there are general provisions in the law like "exigent circumstances" that allow police to proceed with actions that, absent those provisions, would constitute violations of law. "Permission" to violate a right can be granted explicitly in the form of a warrant, which allows law enforcement to "violate" specific property and freedom rights. Finally, one might consider an executive pardon or jury-nullification to be ex post "permission to break the law."
Unless you received an order from the court prohibiting contact, it might be legal; but it's probably not the best idea. Let the lawyers handle it Attorneys have far better, more effective means of dealing with this situation than the course of action you describe. Lawyers have productive tools to accomplish the job and they know how to use them. For example, assume the best-case-scenario results from your idea and you get the other side to admit their affidavit is fallacious in some way. "Aha!" you shout. "Success! Daylight!" But then what? It's not on record. You can't testify to the admission because that's hearsay. Now imagine they next share this information about your little conversation with the counterparty that had them sign the affidavit in the first place. After first being alerted of your concerns, they both now act in concert to shore up their stories and you never see that "daylight" again. Contrast that outcome with one where your guy or gal's attorney deposes the witness under oath, gets them to concede to your version of the facts then introduces the deposition as favorable evidence at trial. That's a much better outcome for "your side." Wouldn't you agree? Be wary of unintended consequences Generally speaking, such direct contact between the parties is often problematic and rarely helpful. (Except, in some cases, when direct contact between the parties leads to a negotiated settlement. Which happens far less often than the direct contact going sideways making the situation even more intractable.) Before you launch off on your own and do something that might be counterproductive. First, identify the areas of the affidavit that you think are inaccurate. Give that information to the party you support, then have them run it by their attorney to figure out the best way to handle the situation.
Only if counsel challenged the point during the trial Difficult as it might be, you can’t allow the judge to be wrong during the trial without calling them on it: very, very politely. For example, there is case law that says you can’t successfully appeal because the judge was asleep through significant parts of the trial; appeals courts are clear that you have to wake them up. If you don’t then you accepted that you didn’t want the judge to hear the parts of the case they slept through, it’s your choice how you present your case. Frankly some cases are better if the judge misses half the evidence. Of course, if the error of law makes it through to the oral or written judgement then you can appeal even if you didn’t take issue with it.