Search results

Objection, once again the Court has made its ruling regarding the identity of this witness. Will the defence respect this ruling or will they continue to play these childish games?

Could a mod please move this out of the thread?

The Court has said it's opinion in plain English, I recommend a dictionary.

The defence has had a chance to disallow this witness, but calling them, asking a single question then throwing a temper tantrum does not count. Once again, the prosecution objects to this game of 20 questions, what next? Does he/she have facial hair, what is the colour of their hair? The Court...

Your opinions are you're own and the Court has made its ruling. At the very least you can keep appealing to the jury in your own imaginary Constitution. And I find it either ironic or an example of extreme ignorance to believe that theatrics play a part in the legal system. There is a time and...

First of all, what if any relevance? Second of all, huh? What do you mean what department? And if it means which government department, then will the defence respect the value of the Court ruling over the anonymity of this witness or will they stop playing 20 questions over the identity of this...

No no please keep attacking the Court for you not doing your job during discovery, it's not me who is in contempt.

:rofl: The Court decided not the Prosecution. And show me one piece of evidence that was accepted by the defence, the prosecution, and the Court during discovery, only to be later inexplicably challenged BW during cross exanination and I'll shut up. The defence had a perfect chance to raise...

Do I even need to say anything about this?

In comparison to the number of objections made by the defence? Hilarious and ironic. But even I have to admit sometimes I feel like Phoenix Wright... If someone else could find another legally accepted and proper way of objecting, then sure.

:rofl: I like that.

It is the duty of the defence to find its own evidence, not to harass witnesses to empty their pockets. The presiding judge has already established the identity of this witness, will the defence respect the rulings of this Court or will they continue these adolescent games? And the rules of...

And this witness, this evidence, all of which has already been approved by the Court, by this very presiding judge! Who else does the defence believe they are appealing to? What if anything is the defence doing but perhaps trying to jigger some loose screw in the accused memory to finger this...

Objection, the purpose of a witness testimony to answer questions. Not to provide evidence, will the defence recognize all, or any legal constructs or will they continue this random desperate attempt for attention?

Yup, throwing everything up at the wall and seeing what sticks.

Objection, the witness has not even said anything yet. What, if any reason would there be to allow this?

Objection, the Court has already decided not to disclose the identity of the informant. Will the defence respect the ruling of this Court or does the defence need to be held in contempt?

The rest are matters of opinion which is up to the Court to decide, but the last is an accusation of misconduct. Now what would that reason possibly be? Or are you just throwing everything up against the wall and seeing what sticks?

And just what would that reason be?

The prosecution rests and awaits the defence's witness.

The prosecution would like to clarify that three pieces of evidence were introduced but only two has been presented, that is, the evidence regarding RB's testimony. The prosecution requests that the Court remind the defence to better coordinate, again.

And thank god for that.

Objection. It is the job of the defence to ask questions not accuse the witness when they say something the defence doesn't agree with. I find this particularly galling especially since the defence is the one inciting others to destroy the Constitution. The Court, the defence, and the...

I am awaiting the ruling, I am not asking you to revoke your request, just doing my job by presenting the Prosecutions case for my own objection.

Like I said before, as long as we're having fun.

Your question could easily have been asked when it was introduced, I think you should take the advice of the presiding judge and better coordinate with your other defence counsel... wherever he seems to have wandered off to.

Maybe because it's true? Every time someone says something that's damaging to you, you object with some flimsy excuse. Maybe that's why almost all your objections have been overruled? But at least we're having fun.

Objection! The Court has already accepted the evidence into question, the defence has had their chance to raise their objections to material well before. Objection! May the defence please stop badgering the witness? They might not like what he has to say but that gives them no right to seek...

NAY

Thank you for your time, defence's witness.