Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
I think it just has to do with how trials are organized. We are still in the Crown's case phase of the trial. The Crown presents witnesses, then the defense cross-examines, and the Crown can then re-examine. When it is the defense's turn, they present witnesses and the Crown crosses. So it isn't like the accused was being unfairly cross-examined on her inconsistencies, it was just their turn.
If the Crown wants to cross-examine a witness at this phase because the witness seems to be testifying for the defense, it's outside of the normal procedure. If the defense doesn't call him, the Crown wouldn't get an opportunity to cross examine. I don't see an issue if the judge allows it, but for the sake of having a clean trial, I can see why it needs to be debated and subject to a judge's discretion. There could be valid reasons to not allow it I assume as well.
|
In general terms the party calling the witness to give testimony in their case is not allowed to challenge the truthfulness of the evidence the witness gives...and direct examination must be open ended questions that do not 'lead' the witness by suggesting answers or conclusions.
As with most things there are exceptions and asking the court for permission to deal with an adverse witness by being allowed to confront them with their prior statements using cross-examination techniques is one of those types of examples.
The trial judge has wide discretion to determine what process should be permitted in the interests of justice after considering all of the circumstances.