4,104
edits
Changes
no edit summary
#If a defence was not called, Crown makes closing submissions first, and then defence counsel.
#The judge will consider the facts and law, make findings of fact and give his or her decision and reasons. If the accused is found guilty, a Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) may be ordered. If one is not ordered, the judge will then hear sentencing submissions.
Students should refer to ''Fundamentals of Trial Techniques'' by Thomas A Mauet (1992), an excellent general guideline to conducting a trial. See also [[Criminal Trial Books (1:App E) | Appendix E: Trial Books]].
=== 2. Nature of the trial ===
The goal of defence counsel at trial is ''not'' to find the truth or to seek justice. The goal of defence counsel is to test the Crown’s case and to present evidence where appropriate, in order to either show that the evidence as a whole fails to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, or to raise a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. Keep in mind that one way to reach reasonable doubt is to convince the trier of fact that based on the evidence presented; they simply cannot know for sure what happened. The adversarial process with defence counsel and Crown Counsel fulfilling their respective roles before a neutral trier of fact has been one of the most effective ways to find the truth and seek justice discovered by mankind. The adversarial process depends upon capable defence counsel vigorously challenging Crown's case and pursuing all viable defences.
=== 3. Presentation of prosecution's case ===
Once a plea has been entered, witnesses will be excluded and the trial begins. The Crown may start with an opening address and then begin calling witnesses for examination and introducing any real evidence (objects, documents, etc.). Next, defence counsel or the accused, if not represented, may cross-examine Crown witnesses. The Crown may then re-examine their witness; however, this re-examination is limited to clarifying or explaining answers given during cross-examination. No leading questions may be put during re-examination and new material can be entered only with leave of the Court. If leave is granted, and new material entered during re-examination, then the defence will be given an opportunity to cross-examine on the new evidence (See: Earl J Levy, ''Examination of Witnesses in Criminal Cases'').
The goal in cross-examination is to demonstrate that this particular witness's evidence is less worthy of belief, by challenging the witness's reliability or credibility, or both. The clinician is entitled to cross-examine a witness on any issue that is relevant or material to the case. The clinician does not have to have evidence on a particular point but does have to have a reasonable basis to believe whatever it is they are suggesting to the witness. The rule in ''Browne v. Dunn'' (1893) 6 R 67, H.L, states that the defence must put its case to each witness on cross-examination. This means that if there is a good possibility that your client will testify in their own defence or you have a specific defence theory that you will argue at the end of your case, then each Crown witness must be confronted with your anticipated defence evidence or theory and provided the opportunity to comment upon that evidence or theory. Typically this is done at the end of your cross examination of each witness with a number of "I suggest to you that..."
Reliability refers to a witness's ability to perceive an event accurately, and later recall and describe that event with detail and precision. This can be the scene, lighting, visibility, any obstructions or distractions, which may have affected the witness’ perception. It can also be the state of the witness at the time (perhaps they were intoxicated at the time).
Credibility refers to a witness’s desire or motivation to describe that event truthfully. Some common credibility challenges include:
*Motive based on personal animus towards the accused,
*A motive based on a personal bias towards the complainant or victim of the alleged crime,
*A motive based on a perceived advantage from the police arising from providing evidence to the police, and
*A witnesses' character is such that they simply cannot be trusted (history of perjury, fraud or lying to the police).