"a man who is his own lawyer has a fool for his client."

Hammer TankHammer Tank Regular
edited March 2011 in Spurious Generalities
Well, I'm a fool and my trial is September 29. I'm in USA, Wisconsin and I need advice. I have prepared questions for the cross examination of the witnesses against me, and I have prepared a 'submission' (final statement). I just don't really know how the fuck this works, so any tips would be welcome.

I have been reading online and I have found mixed answers regarding what you can ask the witnesses about the other witnesses. ie:

Question to witness 1: you stated in the police report that witness 2 has a short temper. do you believe witness 2 is a reasonable person?

would that kind of question attacking a witness' credibility be allowed?

Comments

  • KatzenklavierKatzenklavier Regular
    edited September 2010
    I don't know much about law, but if the jury doesn't vote in your favor, flip them off.
  • Hammer TankHammer Tank Regular
    edited September 2010
    :D :thumbsup:

    Good point sir, I got a good hearty laugh out of that :D

    also, lol

    http://www.perkel.com/pbl/prose.htm
    The first thing you need to know is that representing yourself is called "Pro Se", which when translated into English means, "You're Fucked!"
  • fanglekaifanglekai Regular
    edited September 2010
    Get a lawyer. The judge won't cut you slack for not knowing the rules, and you do not know how to effectively cross examine someone. Fork over some money for a lawyer and win, otherwise you get to pay for their attorney fees and whatever fines you get.
  • Hammer TankHammer Tank Regular
    edited September 2010
    no, I'm already decided that I won't get a lawyer, it will be way too much fun fucking myself over in court. The consequences that I am facing are relatively minor, and I'm not afraid.

    this is criminal court so all I would have to pay is fines. $500 max fine, 6 mos. jail max penalty. If i got sentenced to jail I would probably be laughing at the sheer stupidity of it for the entire six months. Then i would go on a killing spree when released.

    so, any tips on how to properly cross examine someone? :D
  • fanglekaifanglekai Regular
    edited September 2010
    You aren't going to learn how to do it properly in 2 weeks, but if you're to fuck yourself over like an idiot, you might as well learn what you are not allowed to do.

    http://www.google.com/search?q=rules+for+court+cross+examination&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

    Start with google. There are federal laws and state laws I'm sure. Read up on the statutes for the state you live in.

    Alternatively you could call a lawyer advice line to get advice on your situation. The one I know of for my state only costs like $3/min, so it's way cheaper than hiring an attorney. If you do some research and then ask a lawyer your questions, you'll have a much better chance of winning.
  • Hammer TankHammer Tank Regular
    edited September 2010
  • KatzenklavierKatzenklavier Regular
    edited September 2010
    All this for flipping someone off?
  • Hammer TankHammer Tank Regular
    edited September 2010
    yep. justice FTW :facepalm: jury of 6

    this is what happens when you essentially tell the prosecutor to fuck off. I can only pray that the Jury is capable of rational thought.

    Going to view a trial today! I can't think of any better way to learn than this!
  • DysgraphiaDysgraphia Locked
    edited September 2010
    Taking that debate class would've been nice.

    That "last statement" is your rebuttal and you have to sum up how your opinions and evaluations, are better than the negative's.

    Search up videos of Lincoln vs Douglas debates. It should help you prep. for the types of questions you should ask the negative.

    Good luck!

    This one may be lulzy but pay attention to WHAT they ask and HOW they ask it. You don't want to look inferior to the negative's side.

  • KatzenklavierKatzenklavier Regular
    edited September 2010
    Wow, they made things so fucking confusing in that video.
  • DysgraphiaDysgraphia Locked
    edited September 2010
    That's the way it' supposed to be. Restating your opponent's claim in your own words tends to screw them up and pause before answering.

    That pause can be interpreted by the judge as a doubt on their resolution, hence giving you the upper hand. Debates are fun.
  • KatzenklavierKatzenklavier Regular
    edited September 2010
    Also HT, read Atticus Finch's kickass closing argument to give you an idea what to say.
    To begin with, this case should never have come to trial. The State has not produced one iota of medical evidence that the crime Tom Robinson is charged with ever took place. It has relied instead upon the testimony of two witnesses whose evidence has not only been called into serious question on cross examination, but has been flatly contradicted by the defendant. Now there is circumstantial evidence to indicate that Mayella Ewell was beaten savagely by someone who led, almost exclusively, with his left. And Tom Robinson now sits before you, having taken “The Oath” with the only good hand he possesses – his right.

    I have nothing but pity in my heart for the Chief Witness for the State. She is the victim of cruel poverty and ignorance. But, my pity does not extend so far as to her putting a man’s life at stake, which she has done in an effort to get rid of her own guilt. Now I say “guilt,” gentlemen, because it was guilt that motivated her. She’s committed no crime. She has merely broken a rigid and time-honoured code of our society, a code so severe that whoever breaks it is hounded from our midst as unfit to live with. She must destroy the evidence of her offense. But, what was the evidence of her offense? Tom Robinson, a human being. She must put Tom Robinson away from her. Tom Robinson was to her a daily reminder of what she did.

    Now what did she do? She tempted a negro. She was white and she tempted a negro. She did something that in our society is unspeakable: She kissed a black man. Not an old uncle, but a strong, young negro man. No code mattered to her before she broke it, but it came crashing down on her afterwards.

    The witnesses for the State, with the exception of the sheriff of Lincoln County, have presented themselves to you gentlemen – to this Court – in the cynical confidence that their testimony would not be doubted; confident that you gentlemen would go along with them on the assumption, the evil assumption, that all negroes lie; all negroes are basically immoral beings; all negro men are not to be trusted around our women, an assumption that one associates with minds of their calibre, and which is in itself, gentlemen, a lie – which I do not need to point out to you.

    And so, a quiet, humble, respectable negro, who has had the unmitigated TEMERITY to feel sorry for a white woman, has had to put his word against two white peoples. The defendant is not guilty. But somebody in this courtroom is.

    Now, gentlemen, in this country our courts are the great levelers. In our courts, all men are created equal. I’m no idealist to believe firmly in the integrity of our courts and of our jury system. That’s no ideal to me. That is a living, working reality!

    Now I am confident that you gentlemen will review without passion the evidence that you have heard, come to a decision, and restore this man to his family.

    In the name of God, do your duty. In the name of God, believe Tom Robinson.
  • JackJack Regular
    edited September 2010
    Why does every witness examination I see have so much interrupting? Doesn't anyone ever tell the questioner to STFU and let them finish? :mad:
  • SlartibartfastSlartibartfast Global Moderator -__-
    edited September 2010
    Ask "Do you feel guilty that you've set me up?"

    Either way he's fucked.
  • Hammer TankHammer Tank Regular
    edited September 2010
    I watched a trial to learn and it was pretty bad ass, they didn't interrupt at all, they just made their point with asking questions, then when they had obviously "nailed" the witness, they were just quiet for a few seconds to emphasize. I am really pumped for the trial, I have a general idea of how stuff works after watching that trial. I even learned how to object, and I'm gonna object at least once just for the hell of it.

    "OBJECTION YOUR HONOR, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE"
  • fanglekaifanglekai Regular
    edited September 2010
    It'll be lulzy when the judge overrules your objection. Would be even lulzier to see the prosecuting attorney's face if the judge said "objection sustained."
  • DysgraphiaDysgraphia Locked
    edited September 2010
    Jack wrote: »
    Why does every witness examination I see have so much interrupting? Doesn't anyone ever tell the questioner to STFU and let them finish? :mad:
    There's limited time for cross examination so it's fine to rush sometimes.

    As rude as it may seem, it all depends on the judge.
  • Hammer TankHammer Tank Regular
    edited September 2010
    fanglekai wrote: »
    It'll be lulzy when the judge overrules your objection. Would be even lulzier to see the prosecuting attorney's face if the judge said "objection sustained."

    Yes it would :D Some smart ass DA with years of experience getting owned by a punk kid, It would be beautiful.

    But in the trial I went to, there were tons of objections and it didn't seem like a big deal if you won or lost one. I'd say in the two hours I was there, there were 6-8 objections. So if you're overruled, it's not something to get upset about.
  • edited September 2010
    would that kind of question attacking a witness' credibility be allowed?

    How about

    "Witness 1, isn't it true that witness 2 is a frequent user of crack-cocaine?"

    EDIT: Seriously though, what's going to happen here is that you're just going to piss off and bore the judge, and he/she is going to punish you as much as they can.
  • TLVTLV Regular
    edited September 2010
    start every reply with "Implying"
  • uofmcamarouofmcamaro Regular
    edited February 2011
    So has the trail come and pass yet? How did it go?
  • buddhabuddha Regular
    edited February 2011
    uofmcamaro wrote: »
    So has the trail come and pass yet? How did it go?

    He's still in jail for another month or two, how do you think it went?

    LULZ
  • uofmcamarouofmcamaro Regular
    edited February 2011
    buddha wrote: »
    He's still in jail for another month or two, how do you think it went?

    LULZ

    Ha, that was my other option for questioning.
  • buddhabuddha Regular
    edited February 2011
    uofmcamaro wrote: »
    Ha, that was my other option for questioning.

    He has posted since then, but I'm assuming it didn't get to well since he never updated this.

    Who knows he might see this now and give us a heads up.
  • uofmcamarouofmcamaro Regular
    edited February 2011
    buddha wrote: »
    He has posted since then, but I'm assuming it didn't get to well since he never updated this.

    Who knows he might see this now and give us a heads up.

    Yeah, I'm curious.

    I've always heard that judges don't take too kindly to "ordinary citizens" being their own lawyers. I guess they think of it as a person who hasn't gone to school coming in and beating them at their profession? Curious as to if that was what it seemed like.
  • Hammer TankHammer Tank Regular
    edited February 2011
    yea its over.

    the case of disorderly conduct was dismissed, because im a fuckin boss. I showed up on trial day and they told me they didnt have time to try my case, so basically all these witnesses showed up for nothing. we postponed then next time i came in for my other case, it was dismissed as part of a plea bargain.

    and the charge of misdemeanor harassment i plead guilty to. 1yr probation no fine. I'm already on the 3rd month of probation and my probation officer likes the hell out of me, and laughed when i told her what happened. its gonna be a piece of cake.

    the courtroom shit was fun, but too bad i didn't get to have a trial. from the interactions i had with the judge, he didn't seem to resent me or anything. after i plead guilty to the DA i had to wait a few, that gave me time to formulate a little "please go easy on me in sentencing judge lolz" speech. The judge seemed kinda impressed by my speech, and gave me the probation + no fine. he was cool.
  • edited March 2011
    It's fucked that this went to trial in the first place.

    Penalizing the use of the middle finger is horseshit.
Sign In or Register to comment.