Lawyers or Law Students, Question!

[Zenas]

I'm doing Mock Trial and I'm wondering if I can be sneaky and try to exclude a witness. I haven't been taught about that aspect of trial advocacy (yet) and was wondering if anyone knew the procedure for asking for exclusion, and on what basis I can ask for it.

I doubt I will be able to do it, due to the nature of these things, but it's worth a shot.

 

[VictorBravo]

I'm assuming you are using the Federal Rules of Evidence or something similar. Check out ER 601 and following. Basically, unless you can demonstrate that they are incompetent (they are presumed to be competent) or that they have no knowledge (ER 602) of the factual issues at trial, you won't succeed.

Of course, you can impeach them, which is much more fun anyway.

I'll send you my consultation bill at the end of the month.

 

[Zenas]

I figured as much. Oh well, no excluded witnesses.

I'll grant you a security interest in some of my property for your fee. Good luck on attachment though, trying to nail down a description of what I own is like trying to nail water to the wall.

 

[fredtgreco]

I figured as much. Oh well, no excluded witnesses.

I'll grant you a security interest in some of my property for your fee. Good luck on attachment though, trying to nail down a description of what I own is like trying to nail water to the wall.

That's OK. I was primarily a commercial finance lawyer. I'll write up the paperwork for Vic, and like any good bank/creditor attorney, send the bill to the borrower to pay.

 

[Zenas]

Oh great. What's better than two lawyers after you.

 

[VictorBravo]

I figured as much. Oh well, no excluded witnesses.

I'll grant you a security interest in some of my property for your fee. Good luck on attachment though, trying to nail down a description of what I own is like trying to nail water to the wall.

That's OK. I was primarily a commercial finance lawyer. I'll write up the paperwork for Vic, and like any good bank/creditor attorney, send the bill to the borrower to pay.

Sounds good, Fred. Make sure that security interest covers after aquired property.

 

[Whitefield]

Zenas, maybe you can get some federal bail-out money to help you with those incoming bills.

 

[BJClark]

Zenas;

I'm doing Mock Trial and I'm wondering if I can be sneaky and try to exclude a witness. I haven't been taught about that aspect of trial advocacy (yet) and was wondering if anyone knew the procedure for asking for exclusion, and on what basis I can ask for it.

I doubt I will be able to do it, due to the nature of these things, but it's worth a shot.

Can you just not call the witness? I mean, why MUST you call someone to testify? Thereby excluding the witness that way?

Or if the other side calls a witness can't you refuse to cross-examine them? if need be?
or cross examine them to the point of making their testimony null and of little effect?

 

[Zenas]

I mean a witness adverse to me. I won't call any witnesses who are going to give testimony I don't like. The prosecution, however, will and I wanted to know if I could get them thrown out.

 

[fredtgreco]

I figured as much. Oh well, no excluded witnesses.

I'll grant you a security interest in some of my property for your fee. Good luck on attachment though, trying to nail down a description of what I own is like trying to nail water to the wall.

That's OK. I was primarily a commercial finance lawyer. I'll write up the paperwork for Vic, and like any good bank/creditor attorney, send the bill to the borrower to pay.

Sounds good, Fred. Make sure that security interest covers after aquired property.

Absolutely, "PROCEEDS, Baby!!"

 

[BJClark]

Zenas;

]I mean a witness adverse to me. I won't call any witnesses who are going to give testimony I don't like. The prosecution, however, will and I wanted to know if I could get them thrown out.

Disqualifying an expert witness. | Article from Trial | HighBeam Research

Could you prove such a relationship as is described in the above??

 

[P.F.]

As a practical point, it would seem to defeat the purpose of mock trial if the witnesses were not examined. So, I'm guessing that trying to exclude a witnesses for incompetence or the like is probably a losing battle.

Depending on your jurisdiction, though, you could ask for a "rule to exclude" (I'm sure you can track down the precise mechanism in your jurisdiction), which just requires that the witnesses that are not testifying be kept out of earshot until it is their turn to testify.

That one might work, and might make you look like you know what you are doing, rather than looking like you are trying to get out of cross-examining the witnesses.