Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

So came up with this statute that children could

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: lways had this problem where some lawyers just want to go on and on and on. It's always been the doctrine that the court at a certain point can say "counselor, I think you've covered everything let's move on." - But this gets appealed sometime...the judge unreasonably limited by cross constitutional issue, confrontation clause. o Normally, it is found that the confrontation clause is violated, but in the notes there is a case that is to the contrary: United States v. Caudle, court's limitation on cross found to be reversible error (pg. 366, halfway down page) Defense counsel wants to go back to page one of the documents and go through the exact same thing the prosecution went through. Asking similar questions. Objection = "asked and answered" judge repeatedly sustained that objection. Appeals court explains that asked and answered is appropriate to sustain only if the question has already been put by the same lawyer to the witness and it has been answered! It's commonsense that it is appropriate during cross to repose identical questions to the witness, because you may not get the same answer...or you ma...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online