Do British judges violate judicial conduct if they tell lawyers to &quot;sit down and shut up&quot;? I transcribe 2:39 And I was once before a very senior judge, and the first thing he said was, 'You have to finish your arguments by twelve o'clock. If you can't finish, sit down and shut up'. Very hostile, and before I said anything. This judge's hostility startled me, not least because the interviewee is a famous barrister and law professor in Hong Kong! This isn't just some sharp practice shady lawyer! Professor Johannes M M Chan SC 陳文敏 | Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong is Chair of Public Law, and former Dean of the Faculty of Law (2002-2014), being the longest serving Dean of the Faculty. He is a Visiting Professor of University College London (2018-2023), and formerly the BOK Visiting International Professor of Penn Law School, University of Pennsylvania, Herbert Smith Freehills Visiting Professor of Cambridge University, and a visiting fellow of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge University. As a barrister, he has appeared in many major constitutional law cases. In 2003, he was honoured by the Chief Justice by his appointment as the first (and so far the only) Honorary Senior Counsel in Hong Kong. In 2019, he was awarded by the Hong Kong Research Grants Council the RGC Prestigious Fellowship in Humanities and Social Sciences. I don't have any relationship with Hong Kong, so I ask this just for British judges and the Guide to Judicial Conduct. Of note, some Hong Kong law is based on English law, and Hong Kong was a former British colony.
Telling to &quot;shut up&quot; may amount to misconduct: Judicial Conduct Investigations Office can investigate &quot;offensive language&quot;. Otherwise, judges are in charge of everything that happens in the courtroom. They have full powers to limit time that a party can speak and tell to sit down and be quiet. Helpful article: Judicial conduct: when it goes wrong
The answer to this question will be almost entirely informed by the why that you've asked us not to consider. If the prosecutor or judge is a witness, the defendant should be able to call them, but that also means they would have to withdraw from the case under either Rule 3.7 or Canon 3. If the defendant believes the prosecution is tainted by some improper motive, the defendant may raise that objection under Crim. R. 12, but he must do so pretrial. I can't think of any circumstances where the defendant could question the judge or prosecutor in the jury's presence.
As mentioned in a comment by @Dancrumb, the exact policies of each local police department will be different, and there are thousands of them. There is a relevant requirement at the Federal level according the Department of Justice, but it is not clear to me to what extent this applies to peers and not just supervisors: An officer who purposefully allows a fellow officer to violate a victim's Constitutional rights may be prosecuted for failure to intervene to stop the Constitutional violation. To prosecute such an officer, the government must show that the defendant officer was aware of the Constitutional violation, had an opportunity to intervene, and chose not to do so. This charge is often appropriate for supervisory officers who observe uses of excessive force without stopping them, or who actively encourage uses of excessive force but do not directly participate in them.
The reality is that it is almost never an acceptable tactic to use in any jurisdiction where I ever have/or currently do practice. The bar is relatively small no matter where you are; even in bigger cities. Your reputation is your most valuable asset and it would be crippled if this became your M.O., or was used in anything but the most rare and egregious situations (e.g. withholding evidence, lying to the judge, tampering with jury). Small violations (which are seemingly big in the heat of trial) happen every day and if you even suggested this it would come back on you more times than not. This is exponentially true in the criminal arena where the Judges and prosecutors interact on a daily basis and have formed collegial relationships. If you practice criminal law you often need to form good working relationships with the ADAs or AAGs since most cases get disposed of through negotiations with these very individuals. I have been in situations where my colleagues and I discussed it, opined on how it would be appropriate, but in the end have never gone that far. One time things were so bad with opposing counsel on so many levels, I considered it; however, I was a newish lawyer and my mentor at the time told me that he had never seen anyone but a federal court judge issue a sanction and aside from that, had never even seen it requested by a lawyer in the local bar. And these were horribly bad violations of the rules of procedure, conduct unbecoming, etc. So, I would suggest avoiding this practice. My rule of thumb is that unless the offending practice is so egregious that one would be technically duty bound to report the conduct to the bar, it is not appropriate to ask for sanctions.
There is a grievance procedure whereby a student can file a complain against a professor. (The possibility that there is no procedure is negligible: I can find the document if you name the institution). They may have reviewed the situation and taken whatever action they plan to. The person complaining will receive notice of the outcome, but it is unlikely that the outcome will be made public. Supposing that you are just an interested bystander: your right is to withdraw from the university, write a letter of protest, or continue as usual. You have no special legal privileges in this situation, because you were not directly harmed. You cannot sue a person for making society less livable for you. I cannot sue the university because (as a professor at a presumably different institution) I am only ephemerally harmed by university administrations covering their legal interests rather than punishing the wicked. You have no standing (technical term) in a lawsuit. Now suppose you were actually the aggrieved student and the wrong was a wrongful public accusation of plagiarism (defamation). The defamed student can sue the professor. This is true no matter what the result of the internal disciplinary process is – except that the university might cleverly get the student to agree to shut up in exchange for some desirable outcome.
The first thing to keep in mind is that, before appearing on the stand, an expert witness will have given a sworn deposition and delivered a written report of his or her findings. They could expect to be questioned about anything they say under oath that contradicts something else they said under oath. It’s not illegal for an expert to admit they were wrong before, or that there are other facts that support a different conclusion—indeed, a witness on the stand might be obligated to—but it might not do their professional reputation and their credibility with the jury any good, either. In the U.S., the opposing counsel is generally allowed to contact a witness, and take a statement, but may not ask the witness to testify falsely or offer any inducement prohibited by law. (See Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 173/Model Rule (MR) 3.4.) It would certainly be illegal for a witness to take money from both parties in the case without informing them or the court, or to swear that whatever the highest bidder pays them to say is their expert opinion. If this happened under direct examination, the lawyer would probably cut their losses by asking no further questions and getting the witness off the stand. Putting the witness on the stand would give the other side an opportunity to cross-examine them. Grilling your own expert as a hostile witness, even if the judge allowed it, would only make your position seem tendentious. Nothing stops an expert witness from giving testimony that is more helpful to the other side. They are witnesses, not lawyers, and their duty is to tell the truth, not to zealously advocate on behalf of some client.
No. Indonesia Law uses Civil Law structures which use an Inquisitorial Trial. The chief difference is that in the United States (which has a Common Law Structure) the judge usually does not decide the case, but interprets the law (Trier of Law) and with a few exceptions, will determine the sentence once guilt is found. The Jury decides the case (Trier of Fact) and pronounces guilt (It is the right of the defense to request a Bench Trial, which gives the Judge both roles. The prosecution cannot object to this request). In a Civil Court, the big difference is that their is no Jury and the Judge has both roles (Trier of Law, and Trier of Fact). As the name suggests, rather than two sides fighting each other (adversarial), the two sides are answering questions posed to them by the Judge or usually a panel of Judges are used and the Judge may initiate further investigation in the evidence. The United States does use Inquisitional Trials from time to time, but they are often seen in misdemeanors, traffic courts, and small claims courts. The latter is a popular daytime TV genre (think Judge Judy) while misdemeanors and traffic court decisions are often time funny and make great Youtube videos. There are not many great Adversarial media as many throw out rules for time sake (real U.S. trials have many long boring periods during testimony) and story/drama sake. I would recommend "My Cousin Vinny" which was written by two lawyers who were fed up with Hollywood messing up how court room drama works and is hilarious to boot. When viewing either, take them with a grain of salt.
In the west, the profession of being a &quot;lawyer&quot; came into existence under the Roman Empire, though there were sorta-lawyers in Ancient Greece (orators, who could not receive a fee for pleading on behalf of another). In Egypt, Sumer, Babylon, Persia and so on, there was nothing like a lawyer – you were to plead your own case if you ended up in a dispute / being accused of a crime. As far as I know, there were no lawyers under Chinese traditional law.