Rules Change Request

punk d

punk d

TNPer
-
-
Dear Justices,

Please, I beg of you to allow in-thread witness examination. At present I am waiting for Gaspo to depose Eluvatar. Previously we have waited for Eluvatar.

It is a major undertaking to get witnesses and attorneys in the same spot at the same time. Yes, it goes much more smoothly, but I am begging at the mercy of the court to allow in-thread testimony. We could have deposed all the witnesses in the JAL case over the last couple of weeks with in-thread testimony. Can this please be added to the rules as an admissible means of examining witnesses?

thank you,
Punk
AG
 
punk d:
Dear Justices,

Please, I beg of you to allow in-thread witness examination. At present I am waiting for Gaspo to depose Eluvatar. Previously we have waited for Eluvatar.

It is a major undertaking to get witnesses and attorneys in the same spot at the same time. Yes, it goes much more smoothly, but I am begging at the mercy of the court to allow in-thread testimony. We could have deposed all the witnesses in the JAL case over the last couple of weeks with in-thread testimony. Can this please be added to the rules as an admissible means of examining witnesses?

thank you,
Punk
AG
Click to expand...
It is currently up to the Moderating Justice if they will allow in thread testimony. I personally don't have an issue with it. The Court will be reviewing the Court rules later this month and will consider this.
 
Having seen the length of some of the testimony I've got to review, it would need a separate thread for each witness, and as such a rearrangement of the subforums.
 
What about this idea:

Submitting questions (make a max of 5-10) to the witnesses. The other party can object to any question. Once settled, the questions go to the witness who then responds. Again, if either party has an objection, make it known then.

Once one side is complete, the other party then submits cross-examination questions. Same process as before.

I'm not saying this needs to be THE method, but I do think an alternative method would be useful.
 
punk d:
What about this idea:

Submitting questions (make a max of 5-10) to the witnesses. The other party can object to any question. Once settled, the questions go to the witness who then responds. Again, if either party has an objection, make it known then.

Once one side is complete, the other party then submits cross-examination questions. Same process as before.

I'm not saying this needs to be THE method, but I do think an alternative method would be useful.
Click to expand...
I might disagree with that, because some questions could base off answers, or the conversation, or objections, or visa versa.
 
Yes, not only is that a possibility, but a likelihood. It probably puts the direct examiner at a disadvantage. But, we could give counsel 1 or 2 rights to recall during the examination period to resolve that issue.

Again – this would simply be an alternative to the IRC method not the standard practice.
 
The system you're suggesting is basically submitting interrogatories, to be responded to via affidavit. Given that cross-examination is traditionally limited to things brought up in the scope of direct examination, perhaps affidavits stating the material within the witness' knowledge, and cross-examined through interrogatories, would be more efficient.



Or the parties involved could just spend more time on IRC. Simplest that way, to be honest.
 
More time on IRC would be awesome, but at least this guy has a life situation that does not permit extended periods of time on IRC. If it did, I wouldn't request special accomodations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top