Ndombwindo
JF-Expert Member
- Nov 23, 2013
- 1,243
- 1,773
This part of conclusion must be left out to be puzzled by your honor…
This part of conclusion must be left out to be puzzled by your honor…Are you convinced that the witnesses are not lying ?
Absolutely no, and the other way around is not accepted.In this case, If a witness speaks truths will it be proper to call him a truthful ??!
Kibatala hana lolote ndiyo maana kila siku anapigwa chini ila kwa nyumbu anaonekana anajua sana!!Lala na aibu yako wakili wa serikali. Kibatala anawanyima usingizi kabisa.
Absolutely no, and the other way around is not accepted.
Huyu ni one of the Mawakili wa serikali wanaopambana naye pale kortini. Ndiyo maana anafanya uharibifu kwa KiibatalaYou can't conclude the novicity of a lawyer by considering only a single factor. Unless you are sent to destroy his reputation.
Huyu ni one of the Mawakili wa serikali wanaopambana naye pale kortini. Ndiyo maana anafanya uharibifu kwa KibatalaYou can't conclude the novicity of a lawyer by considering only a single factor. Unless you are sent to destroy his reputation.
Kila kesi ina namna yake ya kuhandle mambo kadhaa kulingana na nini kimefanyika na kinachotokea kwenye msingi wa kesi.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.
Mawakili wa aina yako hawaziwezi kesi za Chadema ndiyo mnaanza vimbwanga kwa KibatalaAfadhali 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
Ndiyo Objections kwa state Atorneys toka kwa utetezi ziko nyingi Sana. Huyu mleta Mada ni state atorney, kwa mantiki hiyo na yeye ni kilaza kama anaowaita vilazaSehemu kubwa ya wanasheria wetu ni empty kabisa, bali sifa ya kuwa wanasheria tu. Kama defense attorney anauliza swali ambalo ni argumentative, na speculative inabidi state attorney aweke objection. Sasa iwapo state attorney naye analala mpaka maswali ambayo ni argumentative, speculative , vague and ambiguous yanaingia kwenye court proceedings basi pande zote mbili zinapwaya.
Aiseee....kumbe...Mzee El Maamry amefariki mwaka huu
Now am really convinced the fact you did copy and paste your thread.It does not matter, what matter is that it is improper for a lawyer to call a witness a liar; all the lawyer has to show is pointing to the lies that is established and that can be done in the final submission.
MANJI AMKATAA WAKILI KIBATALA KORTINI
NA KULWA MZEE
-DAR ES SALAAM
MFANYABIASHARA Yusufali Manji (41), anayekabiliwa na mashtaka ya uhujumu uchumi, amekataa mbele ya mahakama kutetewa na Wakili Peter Kibatala, kutokana na kile alichosema ni sababu za kisiasa.
Manji alitoa kauli hiyo jana mbele ya Jaji wa Mahakama Kuu, Isaya Arufani, kabla hajatoa uamuzi wa kutupilia mbali ombi la dhamana la mfanyabiashara huyo ambaye sasa inabidi akaitafute dhamana Mahakama Kuu Divisheni ya Rushwa na Uhujumu Uchumi.
“Mheshimiwa Jaji, nilipowasilisha maombi ya dhamana nilimpa maelekezo Wakili Joseph Thadayo aniwakilishe, lakini nilishangaa kesi ilipokuja kusikilizwa Wakili Kibatala alikuja kuniwakilisha.
“Sitaki kuwakilishwa na Kibatala kwa sababu za kisiasa, nitakuwa nawakilishwa na Wakili Alex Mgongolwa, Hudson Ndusyepo na Seni Malimi,” alidai Manji.
Vyovyote vile lakini isiwe ndiyo tiketi ya kudharirisha mashahidi- hiyo ni kinyume cha maadili. Kilaga Kibatala asijekuwa kama Baloteli- kipaji anacho- maadili sasaKila kesi ina namna yake ya kuhandle mambo kadhaa kulingana na nini kimefanyika na kinachotokea kwenye msingi wa kesi.
You're overwhelmed with political bigotry, it definitely affects your sense of reasoning. Leave the guy alone.These are words given by legal expert and they speak volume
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 is scoring low marks here
I respect your opinionYou 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.
Wewe ni Bush Baby sory Bush lawyer. Tunaweza kukujibu kwa lugha unayonukuu lakini acha tukujibu kwa lugha ya taifa. Usidanganye watu kwa vijineno vya rejareja kwamba lies zinatakiwa kuwa established wakati wa final submission, lies zinatakiwa kuwa established kwenye cross examination na kuhitimishwa kwa msisitizo wakati wa final submission. Kasome tena desa ulilopewa.It does not matter, what matter is that it is improper for a lawyer to call a witness a liar; all the lawyer has to show is pointing to the lies that is established and that can be done in the final submission.
Telling lies is done by Liars.that is OK but calling a witness a liar is improper
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.