Upon reading these notes, you will conclude that Kibatala is a novice lawyer

Kalamu1 said:
You show you have a personal grudge against Kibatala, possibly because he is smarter than you are. You're not the final authority in judging his capabilities. Let people assess his capabilities as they see the way he handles this case.

I have no particular knowledge of him, but seeing what he is presenting in court, I am impressed by what he is doing. Whether he is smart or not, I'll make my own observations based on his performance in this court, notwithstanding the final outcome of the case.
Click to expand...
Your praise made me a have a critical look at his conduct and he is failing big time in the courtroom decorum. His activism background is his big limitation
NewPage said:
You know nothing about cross-examination. Your copy and paste post reveals greatly you hatred to Kibatala! Pyuuuuuu!
Click to expand...
 
NewPage said:
You know nothing about cross-examination. Your copy and paste post reveals greatly you hatred to Kibatala! Pyuuuuuu!
Click to expand...
In responding to you i am placing before you what the legal experts say:-
D. Evidence and Legal Ethics

The process of examining, cross examining and impeaching witnesses and presenting various forms of evidence in court is subject not only to rules of evidentiary admissibility such as relevance and hearsay, and rules of evidentiary procedure (e.g. Rule 611), but also to rules of lawyers’ ethics. While courtroom lawyers are expected to be vigorous advocates for their respective clients’ legal and factual contentions, they are not unbounded in their presentation of factual material. As officers of the court, lawyers are ethically forbidden from making direct assertions of fact they know are false. They are also barred from presenting testimony that they know is perjurious. How do lawyers reconcile their roles as partisan adversaries with a standard of candor in their dealings with facts in court?

Kibatala fails badly in rules of lawyers' ethics and that is fatal
 
comte said:
Accusing a witness of “lying.”
The older lawyers also taught me that I must never directly accuse a witness or a party of “lying” while I was questioning them. Yet every week I hear lawyers doing this. This is usually done by the lawyer asking the accusative rhetorical question:

“Sir, you do know that you are under oath now, don’t you?” Or: “Is that your signature on that financial affidavit?” A rhetorical question is one to which no answer is needed or expected, one that is its own answer. Rhetorical questions are, by definition, argumentative questions and argumentative questions are improper, objectionable questions
A lawyer can argue to the court at the conclusion of the evidence, but a lawyer cannot argue with a witness.

So, this question is improper because it is an argumentative question. It is also unethical to directly accuse a witness of lying because it injects the lawyer’s personal opinion into the questioning. It is also out of order because it presents argument on the credibility of a witness during presentation of evidence and not during final argument.

It is also very ineffective lawyering. It makes me think the lawyer resorting to such improper behavior has no merit to his case because he is obscuring the issues by making unethical accusations directly to a witness instead of admitting evidence that supports his case. It also makes the witness so defensive that nothing probative will be obtained from that witness.

Effective questioning is subtle and appears to be misdirected so that the witness does not realize he is giving information helpful to the questioner. Basketball players who cannot feint will have their passes intercepted, and lawyers who are obvious in the line of their questioning will have the witness anticipating the next the question.

Accusative, hostile, blundering questioning puts the witness on guard and clues him to the path the lawyer is taking. It also proves nothing, except that the lawyer is very ineffective.


Click to expand...
Bush lawyer unaleta ujinga wako kwenye mitandao badala ya kumface na kumuelimisha Wakili mwenzako inaonekana wewe ni Wakili wa serikali bwege wewe na bado atakunyoosha sana tu. Jinga kabisa
 
comte said:
Your praise made me a have a critical look at his conduct and he is failing big time in the courtroom decorum. His activism background is his big limitation
Click to expand...
You purpot to know his "activism background", whatever that means; I don't.

What? My "praise of him"? What praise are you writing about?

Then you appear to be 'unreal'. My praise of him "made you have a critical look at his conduct"? What the heck are you saying? You mean when you decided to put forth the thread under discussion you had no knowledge of him?
 
Kalamu1 said:
You purpot to know his "activism background", whatever that means; I don't.

What? My "praise of him"? What praise are you writing about?

Then you appear to be 'unreal'. My praise of him "made you have a critical look at his conduct"? What the heck are you saying? You mean when you decided to put forth the thread under discussion you had no knowledge of him?
Click to expand...
Many people think Kibatala is a good lawyer. It is their opinion which they are entitled to have. However, they are not entitled to the fact. I have posted this article after doing a fact check on his courtroom decorum by subjecting him to expertise marking scheme. What i have found is that he is scoring low marks. What do you think- I do not care
 
comte said:
Many people think Kibatala is a good lawyer. It is their opinion which they are entitled to have. However, they are not entitled to the fact. I have posted this article after doing a fact check on his courtroom decorum by subjecting him to expertise marking scheme. What i have found is that he is scoring low marks. What do you think- I do not care
Click to expand...
So, if you agree they are entitled to "their opinion", where is the problem?
That "court room decorum" is irrelevant. There is a judge presiding in the courroomt. Let him take care of that. You're not even talking about the substance of the law here!

Then you ask "what do I think", about what? Your "subjecting him to expertise marking scheme"? How can I have an opinion on something (marking scheme) that I am not privy to?
 
comte said:
SIYO SAWA kwa wakili kumuuita shahidi MUUNGO au kutumia maneno ya kumdharirisha shahidi.
Pia wakili hapaswi kutoa maoni yake juu ya jambo lolote
pia ni makosa kwa wakili kuitisha mkutano wa vyombo vya habari na kueleza kuwa mteja wake hana hatia wakati kesi inaendelea. Tazama
Gentile v. State Bar, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991) had a strong impact on the way the legal profession can enforce publicity regulation. In "Gentile", a lawyer was subjected to discipline for setting up a press conference and declaring his client’s innocence. The lawyer’s goal was to use the conference as a means to fend off adverse publicity. The United States Supreme Court held that while the lawyer should not have been disciplined, states may impose reasonable restrictions on the conduct of lawyers so as to prevent extrajudicial statements from prejudicing the outcome of a case.
Click to expand...
Mbona mnateseka? mnampenda sana Mbowe? simtulie?
 
Yoda said:
Lissu hataki hata kuisikia hiyo kesi, akiulizwa huenda akasema Mbowe aondoe kabisa mawakili mahakama iamue itakavyoamua.

Fatma Karume alinyang'anywa leseni yake ya uwakili na kina Feleshi enzi za jiwe kwa sababu za "kutukana"

Mkono yuko wapi? Bado ni mgonjwa ?Bado ni mbunge kupitia CCM?

Huyo El- Maamry ndio nani?
Click to expand...
Kamtukana nani?
 
kabombe said:
Kibatala anatakiwa akafanye kazi nje kama south africa walau miaka miwili aone jinsi mawakili wa utetezi wanavyoweza kupangua kesi
Kesi ya mteja wa kibatala inayoweza kuchukua miezi mitatu kuisha,kwa kibatala inaweza kuchukua hata miaka miwili na bado akashindwa
Mara atakata rufaa mahakama kuu kuwa mteja alisachiwa usiku wa manane,mara atafungua kesi ndani ya kesi kumpinga tu shahidi,matokeo concentration kwa kesi ya msingi inapungua na jamhuri inazidi kujipanga
Kesi ya sugu ilikua hivyo hivyo mwisho akajitoa na kwa mdude hivyo hivyo
Click to expand...
Wewe umeshinda kesi ngapi tuanzie hapa kwanza
 
Bondpost said:
Bush lawyer unaleta ujinga wako kwenye mitandao badala ya kumface na kumuelimisha Wakili mwenzako inaonekana wewe ni Wakili wa serikali bwege wewe na bado atakunyoosha sana tu. Jinga kabisa
Click to expand...
Mjinga tu uwakili autoe wapi ....
 
Kalamu1 said:
So, if you agree they are entitled to "their opinion", where is the problem?
That "court room decorum" is irrelevant. There is a judge presiding in the courroomt. Let him take care of that. You're not even talking about the substance of the law here!

Then you ask "what do I think", about what? Your "subjecting him to expertise marking scheme"? How can I have an opinion on something (marking scheme) that I am not privy to?
Click to expand...
see for your self the proof of the novice and unethical of Kibatala

Kibatala: Mwambie Jaji hujui kuwa ulikuja kutoa ushahidi kuhusu kesi ndogo katika kesi kubwa kuhusu malekezo ya Adamoo.

Shahidi: Hilo sifahamu.

Kibatala: OK. Kumbe tupo na shahidi ambaye hajui amekuja kufanya nini mahakamani.

Wakili wa Serikali: OBJECTION. Tunaomba maswali ya Kibatala yazingatie utu na kuacha udhalilishaji.

Jaji: Kama amabavyo tunazungumzia ukamataji na mambo ya utu kuzingatia naomba na hapa amahakamani tuzingatie mambo ya utu ya kumtendea mtu.
 
Imeloa said:
You need to divulge your identity to be able to question the credentials of the learned counsel otherwise hiding behind pseudonym shows that you're not sincere in your challenge and that your endeavouring to tarnish the good image of the learned counsel just to justify the stipends you're getting from your paymasters.

It seems the learned counsel's defensive approach to this trumped up litigation is a cause for concern to his client's persecutors like you in particular and your paymasters in general, hence your baseless challenge.
Click to expand...
Kama imeloa Tia mate
 
dolevaby said:
Mjinga tu uwakili autoe wapi ....
Click to expand...
Afadhali kuwa mjinga kuliko kuwa wakili asiye na maadili kama Kibatala

Annoying things lawyers do over and over
(1) Asking a witness, especially a party witness, to read out loud from a document that is in evidence. This is an annoying waste of time, and if asked of an adverse party witness, certain to result in evasive, nonresponsive, self-serving and argumentative answers from the witness. Asking a witness to read out loud from a document in evidence is probative of nothing except that the witness is literate and can read, which is never an issue anyway. If the document is not in evidence, the witness cannot read out loud from it under any circumstances. The witness can look at it to refresh her memory, for instance, or look at it and read it silently if asked to identify a document, but until the document is in evidence, the witness cannot read out loud from it. After a document has been admitted into evidence, by stipulation or by authentication and identification and relevance, if an advocate wishes some part of the document to be highlighted to the finder of fact, the jury or the judge in a bench trial, the advocate can publish the significant portions to the finder of fact, which means let the jury or the judge look at it and read it silently to themselves.

Kibatala anafanya hayo hayo

Kibatala: Naomba unisomee hapa katika PGO kuhusu notebook.

Shahidi: Inasema kuhusiana na kuwa na notebook lakini silazimishwi kama nakumbuka kila kitu Mahakamani.

Kibatala: Sihitaji tafsiri yako.

Jaji: (Anaingilia kati nakusema) Naona mmechoka.

Kibatala anataka irudiwe kusomwa sehemu ya saba. Panatokea mvutano kidogo wa kisheria.

Baada ya mvutano Jaji anatoa dakika 10 mawakili wapumzishe vichwa vyao kuhusu mabishano ya shahidi kusoma PGO.

Kwa stahili hii atabaki kuwa wakili wa kesi za CHADEMA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar Discussions

Back
Top Bottom
Forums
New posts
Post thread
Back