What determines the order in which witnesses testify? After day 5 of Floyd case, all of the witnesses thus far appear to be from the prosecution. When does the defense call their witnesses? What determines the order in which witnesses appear in court to testify?
The prosecution chooses the order of its witnesses and must present all of its witnesses before the defense presents its witnesses, and the defense chooses the order of its witnesses. The parties can agree, with the judge's permission, to take a witness out of order (usually for the convenience of a witness who has limited availability on a relatively minor issue). But this is done far more often in civil cases than in criminal cases, because the defense wants to preserve its ability to argue that the prosecution failed to present evidence sufficient to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt in its own case, which can be important in an appeal. If a defense witness is taken out of order, something that a defense witness says could inadvertently tip the balance by establishing some minor but mandatory element of some offense that the prosecution failed to include it its &quot;case in chief&quot;. For example, maybe the relevant statute requires that the defendant be over the age of eighteen to be guilty of a crime (e.g. statutory rape), and the prosecution forgets to ask a question about the defendant's age in their case in chief, so the prosecution fails to prove that element of the crime. If a defense witness taken out of order says that &quot;I've known the defendant since I went to his fifth birthday party in 1980.&quot;, that could be the difference between having the case reversed on appeal and affirming a conviction on that count. So the defense is reluctant to allow its witnesses to be taken out of order. After the prosecution has presented its &quot;case in chief&quot;, and the defense has presented its &quot;case in chief&quot;, the prosecution may then present rebuttal witnesses to the testimony of the defense witnesses, and often, the defense may then present rebuttal witnesses to the prosecution's rebuttal witnesses. After the prosecution completes its case in chief, the defense has the right, if it wishes to do so, to present no additional evidence whatsoever. In a criminal trial, the prosecution often presents many witnesses and the defense often presents far fewer witnesses, but that is not a hard and fast rule. Often the defense presents very little evidence for reasons similar to its reasons for not wanting to take a defense witness out of order. For example, suppose a prosecution witness on a key point is not very credible. Offering a defense witness on that point who is also not very credible could bolster the jury's opinion of the prosecution witness's credibility, or could simply help to corroborate that &quot;something&quot; definitely happened that was memorable when the crime was allegedly committed, even if their accounts are not identical.
what is the sequence of proceedings? See Rule 25.9: the prosecution summarizes the case the defendant has an opportunity to concisely identify what the defendant intends to put into issue the prosecution introduces all of its evidence (including all of its witnesses) (and the defence has the opportunity to cross-examine each) the defendant has an opportunity to ask for a directed verdict of acquittal the defendant has an opportunity to summarize the defence case the defendant has an opportunity to introduce evidence, including witnesses (and the Crown has the opportunity to cross-examine each) either side may introduce additional evidence if needed in rebuttal prosecution's closing submissions defendant's closing submissions
RCW 7.04A.170 states that &quot;An arbitrator may issue a subpoena for the attendance of a witness and for the production of records and other evidence at any hearing and may administer oaths&quot;, also &quot;All laws compelling a person under subpoena to testify and all fees for attending a judicial proceeding, a deposition, or a discovery proceeding as a witness apply to an arbitration proceeding as if the controversy were the subject of a civil action in this state&quot;. There may be states or circumstances where arbitrators are not authorized to administer oaths.
In the united-states, attorneys are almost never placed under oath. Their statements -- whether they are assertions of fact or legal arguments -- are not evidence, and they are not subject to cross examination. There are limited circumstances in which an attorney would be competent to present actual evidence. In such cases, the attorney would be sworn in as a witness and subject to cross examination, but the attorney would likely also be disqualified from acting as an attorney in such a situation under Model Rule 3.7.
I've never heard of a rule specifically addressing this in the united-states, but I expect most courts would disallow it. I suspect a court would believe that the note-taking would be a distraction to the witness, whose focus should be on listening to the questions and providing truthful answers. The note-taking may be perceived as a distraction from the testimony for others in the courtroom, as well. If I were examining the witness, I would probably be entitled to see what the notes say, dragging out the witness's examination. Then the witness would want to take notes about my questions about her notes, and I'd want to see those notes, and you can see how it can get out of control.
Only in a civil case Yes, in a civil case, Alice generally can call Bob as a witness to take the stand. In many cases, this is done very early, locking in their testimony, before expert witnesses or other evidence by the plaintiff are presented to try and undermine the testimony. Alice may ask only questions that have relevance to the case. Let's take for example a dispute about a contract: Alice may ask Bob if he engaged in negotiations to form the contract, about the matter of the contract, if he signed the contract, or how he (or his employees) fulfilled (or not) the contract. Pretty much everything that pertains to the contract or the execution thereof. This does not extend to the settlement of the case or attempts thereof. Alice may not ask if Bob has an affair with Clarice unless that somehow is material to the contract at hand. Alice may not re-ask questions where an objection was sustained in the same way. However, Bob might not need to answer all questions (there are things that are banned from being asked), especially as Bob's attorney will object to questions. A few examples of competent questioning can be seen towards the end of My Cousin Vinnie, though this is a criminal trial. Never in a criminal trial In a criminal trial, not only can the prosecution not call Bob to the stand, he has to elect to go to the stand to even be questioned by the prosecution. That is because he can &quot;plead the 5th&quot;. There is a tiny exception for civil cases, where they can do so there too.
One wouldn't be able to make a claim about a driving record without it being testimony. Testimony will be challenged during cross examination. The prosecutor won't be able to bring up prior bad acts (such as previous speeding tickets) but will most certainly be allowed to rebut any claim of no prior bad acts made by a defendant. When the defendant claims a spotless driving record the defendant is introducing character or a character trait into the trial. Once introduced by the defendant the prosecutor will be allowed to challenge the credibility of that statement and, therefore, the credibility of the witness. Imagine the following interaction: Defendant: I have a spotless driving record. Prosecutor: Are you saying you've never been issued a traffic ticket? Defendant: Um, Uh, well... When a defendant goes to court they are facing a specific charge. The prosecutor will present evidence that supports that charge and it is up to the defendant and his attorneys to sow reasonable doubt within the jury, or at least one juror. By presenting character, the defendant may appear to be saying either, "Hey, it was my first time let me off," or, "I've never done it before so I couldn't have done it this time." Either way, it probably won't create reasonable doubt in the juror's mind about the specific charge they're weighing and it has the potential to open a can of worms that would be unfavorable to the defendant.
So, as you say, these witnesses who try to help their buddy out may be committing perjury. Also, D himself, by lining this up, is probably on the hook for conspiracy to commit perjury and being complicit in perjury. Aside from that, I think your question is: would getting people to testify in a way that implies they did the crime lead to an acquittal for the murderer? The answer is: maybe. The jury will either vote to acquit or to convict. If the jury votes to acquit, then it's over. Double jeopardy protects D from being tried for murder again. But, if the jury votes to convict, the fact that D had his friends testifying in the way you suggest isn't going to get the conviction overturned on appeal because &quot;a reviewing court resolves neither credibility issues nor evidentiary conflicts.&quot; People v. Young, 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181 (Cal. 2005). I haven't done a trial yet, but it strikes me that that might not be the greatest trial strategy. I think generally defense lawyers would prefer to make their client look the furthest thing from gang affiliated as possible. Don't lie to a court or ask anyone to lie to a court for you.