Dawson and Downey
Why was Downey put on the stand and not Dawson?
share[deleted]
[deleted]
The prosecution cannot call the defendant to the stand without his consent.Really? I thought the prosecution could subpoena anybody. Anyway it's immaterial regarding the OP's question since it's evident that Dawson was in fact intended to testify. When Kaffee comes in drunk Jo says
...or maybe we put
Downey back on the stand
before we get to Dawson.
My conclusion is that Downey would give his testimony by way of routine but Dawsons testimony was to be the showcase.
I've had a lot of sobering thoughts in my time Del Boy, it's them that started me drinking! share
[deleted]
Ah yes of course. I never thought about 'pleading the fifth'.
I've had a lot of sobering thoughts in my time Del Boy, it's them that started me drinking!
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
sorry, but Ross (Prosecution) can call Dawson.
I guess from a very technical stand point, Ross could call Dawson to the stand however, if that were to occur...
1. The defense would have immediately objected.
2. The judge would have immediately sustained that objection
3. The defense would have immediately made a motion for a mistrial
4. The judge would then decide if the prosecution's request along with the animated objections from the defense was so prejudicial to the jury that it might likely cause them to have an opinion of guilt about the defendant.
5. The judge would then make his decision, take a recess for the day while the prosecution spent the night in jail.
Unless 831 Article 31 has changed in the last 30 minutes, a defendant can NEVER be compelled to testify or give incriminating statements against him/herself.
share
The prosecutor is entitled to cross examine the defendant only if he takes the stand to testify on his own. And then, he must limit his questions to subjects addressed in the defendant's original testimony.
Think about this for a second
If the defendant took the stand and the defense attorney just decided to ask one question...
Defense - Where were you on the night of 1/20/16?
Defendant - I was in Las Vegas gambling.
Under your reasoning, the prosecution is limited to questions only pertaining to the defendants whereabouts on the night in question and this is inaccurate.
Once a defendant takes the stand, the prosecution can ask anything they want, they can attack his credibility, they can ask about prior bad acts, they can ask him if he committed the crime, they can ask anything in an effort to impeach the witness. They can ask anything they want so long as it is relative to the case.
Where the prosecution is limited on questioning is during Recross examination of the defendant. Those Recross questions are confined only to the testimony given by the defendant during Redirect questioning by the defense attorney. share
[deleted]
They can only attack his credibility on what he has testified to in that trial. They cannot ask about other crimes unless the defendant mentioned other crimes in his testimony. Even prior convictions are off limits if not alluded to by the original questioning. That is rightfully considered prejudicial and any objection would be sustained.
How long have you been practicing law? share
[deleted]
LOL, ok little fellow
share