I’m confused as to how this would work; my understanding is that the Q&A format is fairly strictly enforced, and witnesses can’t just spout except as a response to a direct question - would you have to pull a zootopia?

But of course if you can’t, that would be pretty damn limiting if you literally aren’t allowed to speak in your own defense.

Not that it’s ever a good idea, of course - but how does it work?

  • ShunkW@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    66
    ·
    1 year ago

    You can do so, and generally your examination of yourself is just you testifying in narrative format. Then you’d be cross examined as usual.

  • paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    IANAL, but per this StackExchange question, this is one of the answers for that:

    Yes, though there is a procedure for in that doesn’t involve running back and forth (don’t do this as the bailiff will tackle you).

    The defendant will almost always need to take the stand. There are two ways this can be done. Which is permitted depends on the judge.

    The first, more common method is that the defendant gives a statement without being questioned. This would include all relevant facts that would normally be given by answers to their lawyer’s questions.

    After this statement is given, the prosecution will cross-examine as usual.

    The second is more similar to what you describe- the defendant plays the role of asker and answerer. The defendant does not run back and forth and should probably refrain from doing a silly voice for the lawyer part but yes, they ask questions and answer them. This was used in United States v. Nivica, 887 F.2d 1110 (1st Cir. 1989).

  • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think the way it happens in Jury Duty is how it should work. Dude asks himself a question from the lectern, then runs to the stand to answer it, then runs back to the lectern to ask the next one, then runs back to the stand to answer it, etc.

  • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

    As someone who has been in a few juries I’ll automatically assume guilt if you defend yourself in court and reject a lawyer. Only someone who is guilty does that.

    • andrewta@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      1 year ago

      Next time you are called for jury duty, take your comment you just made as a screen shot and show it to the defense and prosecution. You WILL be escorted from that court room.

    • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean you don’t have to just assume guilt. People representing themselves never do well. There’s a reason why it’s said representing yourself is taking on an idiot for a client.

      • HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’ve seen a few cases self represent (outside small claims). They all lost. It was beautiful in its train-wreckiness. One got an appeal (!) because the judge didn’t do his due diligence in making sure the dude was competent to be his own attorney and it turns out he wasn’t, so it was remanded back to trial court. Where he represented himself again. Kinda made me chuckle, that one.