Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
* "Fruit of the poisonous tree": Evidence that was obtained by an illegal action by an investigator must now be considered inadmissable and must be removed from the prosecution's indictment of the client, which can mean that the defendant's arrest is now also voided and is free to go.
** "Argumentative": The question or statement spoken is not establishing or examining a fact, but is spoken merely to argue with the witness or counsel.
** "Irrelevant" or "immaterial": the question or statement has nothing to do with the case at hand.
** "Assumes facts not in evidence": The question or testimony is making assumptions with no proof to back it up.
** "Assumes facts not in evidence": The question or testimony is making assumptions with no proof to back it up.
Changed line(s) 77 (click to see context) from:
<<|StockPhrases|>>
to:
<<|StockPhrases|>>
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 33 (click to see context) from:
** Parodied in an {{xkcd}} strip where Black Hat Guy pleads the ''third'' amendment [[http://xkcd.com/496/ during a congressional hearing.]]\\
to:
** Parodied in an {{xkcd}} strip where Black Hat Guy pleads the ''third'' amendment [[http://xkcd.com/496/ during a congressional hearing.]]\\]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Parodied in an {{xkcd}} strip where Black Hat Guy pleads the ''third'' amendment [[http://xkcd.com/496/ during a congressional hearing.]]\\
--->"You refuse to quarter troops in your house?"\\
"I have few principles, but I stick by them."
--->"You refuse to quarter troops in your house?"\\
"I have few principles, but I stick by them."
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 28 (click to see context) from:
* "I take the Fifth." This refers to the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, specifically the provision that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Also heard as "I hereby invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege" or "I refuse to answer on the ground it may tend to incriminate me." Technically, a jury is not supposed to regard taking the Fifth in any prejudicial light, but human nature being what it is, it's impossible to make sure that they follow that. Often subverted by people yelling the incorrect amendment.
to:
* "I take plead/take the Fifth." This refers to the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, specifically the provision that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Also heard as "I hereby invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege" or "I refuse to answer on the ground it may tend to incriminate me." Technically, a jury is not supposed to regard taking the Fifth in any prejudicial light, but human nature being what it is, it's impossible to make sure that they follow that. Often subverted by people yelling the incorrect amendment.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* "Perhaps this will refresh your memory."
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Don\'t need a bullet to explain why a witness might be considered hostile
Changed line(s) 59 (click to see context) from:
* "Permission to treat the witness as hostile?" This gives the attorney the right to be more abrasive and direct in their line of questioning, and avoid an objection for badgering the witness.
to:
* "Permission to treat the witness as hostile?" This Once a witness has contradicted himself or changed his testimony from pre-trial discovery, this gives the attorney the right to be more abrasive and direct in their line of questioning, questioning during direct examination, and avoid an objection for badgering the witness.
Deleted line(s) 61 (click to see context) :
** Note that simply asking the court for permission to do this is usually insufficient. You need to have a good reason to do so (the witness contradicted themselves, or have changed their testimony from pre-trial discovery). Otherwise, expect to be overruled.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Taking the 11th
Changed line(s) 28,29 (click to see context) from:
* "I take the Fifth." This refers to the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, specifically the provision that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Technically, a jury is not supposed to regard taking the Fifth in any prejudicial light, but human nature being what it is, it's impossible to make sure that they follow that. Often subverted by people yelling the incorrect amendment.
** Oddly it pops up in ''{{Persona 4}}'', despite being set in Japan (where an equivalent protection against self incrimination exists)... the only rational explanation is it is done as part of the TranslationConvention.
** Oddly it pops up in ''{{Persona 4}}'', despite being set in Japan (where an equivalent protection against self incrimination exists)... the only rational explanation is it is done as part of the TranslationConvention.
to:
* "I take the Fifth." This refers to the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, specifically the provision that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Also heard as "I hereby invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege" or "I refuse to answer on the ground it may tend to incriminate me." Technically, a jury is not supposed to regard taking the Fifth in any prejudicial light, but human nature being what it is, it's impossible to make sure that they follow that. Often subverted by people yelling the incorrect amendment.
** Oddly it pops up in ''{{Persona 4}}'', despite being set in Japan (where an equivalent protection against self incrimination exists)... the only rational explanation is it is done as part of the TranslationConvention.amendment.
** Oddly it pops up in ''{{Persona 4}}'', despite being set in Japan (where an equivalent protection against self incrimination exists)... the only rational explanation is it is done as part of the TranslationConvention.
Changed line(s) 32,33 (click to see context) from:
** Some people apparently try to 'take the fifth' in Canada, forgetting that it's a ''different country''...
** The more formal version of invoking the Fifth Amendment is to say "I refuse to answer on the ground it may tend to incriminate me."
** The more formal version of invoking the Fifth Amendment is to say "I refuse to answer on the ground it may tend to incriminate me."
to:
** Some people apparently try to 'take the fifth' in Canada, forgetting that it's a ''different country''...
** The more formal version of invokingcountry''. [[http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/charter/page-1.html It's the Fifth Amendment is to say "I refuse to answer on "eleventh" there]].
** Oddly it pops up in ''{{Persona 4}}'', as an arguable TranslationConvention for theground it may tend to incriminate me."equivalent protection against self incrimination in Japan.
** The more formal version of invoking
** Oddly it pops up in ''{{Persona 4}}'', as an arguable TranslationConvention for the
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
On the other hand, because the next two items are about affirming, it might be better to explain where this affirming bit came from.
Changed line(s) 21,22 (click to see context) from:
** In the United States you don't have to say the God part, or swear on a [[TheBible Bible]]. [[hottip:*:Anymore. A few centuries ago, though, before the present Constitution, it wouldn't be a stretch that anyone who ''wouldn't'' swear on a Bible [[BurnTheWitch might find themselves tied to a flaming piece of wood]].]]
*** Nevertheless, in AynRand's play ''Night of January 16th'', a judge forces Karen Andre to affirm despite her objecting as an atheist to the "so help you God" part.
*** Nevertheless, in AynRand's play ''Night of January 16th'', a judge forces Karen Andre to affirm despite her objecting as an atheist to the "so help you God" part.
to:
** In the The United States you don't have introduced "affirming" in the 1780s to answer the objections of those whose religious convictions wouldn't let them say the God part, "God" part or swear on a [[TheBible Bible]]. [[hottip:*:Anymore. A few centuries ago, though, before the present Constitution, TheBible. [[hottip:*:Before this, it wouldn't be a stretch that anyone who ''wouldn't'' swear on a Bible [[BurnTheWitch might find themselves tied to a flaming piece of wood]].]]
***Nevertheless, in In AynRand's play ''Night of January 16th'', a judge forces Karen Andre to affirm despite her objecting as an atheist to the "so help you God" part.
***
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
what changed about the \"God\" part in the USA
Changed line(s) 21 (click to see context) from:
** In the United States you don't have to say the God part, or swear on a [[TheBible Bible]]. [[hottip:*:At least, not in ''modern'' times. A few centuries ago, though... well, maybe it wouldn't be a stretch that anyone who ''wouldn't'' swear on a Bible [[BurnTheWitch might find themselves tied to a flaming piece of wood]].]]
to:
** In the United States you don't have to say the God part, or swear on a [[TheBible Bible]]. [[hottip:*:At least, not in ''modern'' times. [[hottip:*:Anymore. A few centuries ago, though... well, maybe though, before the present Constitution, it wouldn't be a stretch that anyone who ''wouldn't'' swear on a Bible [[BurnTheWitch might find themselves tied to a flaming piece of wood]].]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 42,43 (click to see context) from:
* "May I approach the bench?". I know of one Canadian law student who requested this during a mock trial, only to be informed that it was only done in the US and/or on TV, and he should just approach without asking.
** Funny that. In most other Commonwealth jurisdictions you should ask if you're allowed to do that.
** Funny that. In most other Commonwealth jurisdictions you should ask if you're allowed to do that.
to:
* "May I approach the bench?". I know of one Canadian law student who requested In Canada lawyers can do this during a mock trial, only to be informed that it was only done in the US and/or on TV, and he should just approach without asking.
** Funny that. Inasking, but in most other Commonwealth jurisdictions you should ask if you're allowed to do that.
** Funny that. In
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
That markup is to be stricken from the record
Changed line(s) 28 (click to see context) from:
* "I [[strike:plead]] take the Fifth." This refers to the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, specifically the provision that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Technically, a jury is not supposed to regard taking the Fifth in any prejudicial light, but human nature being what it is, it's impossible to make sure that they follow that. Often subverted by people yelling the incorrect amendment.
to:
* "I [[strike:plead]] take the Fifth." This refers to the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, specifically the provision that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Technically, a jury is not supposed to regard taking the Fifth in any prejudicial light, but human nature being what it is, it's impossible to make sure that they follow that. Often subverted by people yelling the incorrect amendment.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Changed reference to \"UK\" to \"England\" (apologies to any Welsh editors); the law is different, and in my experience at least, \"Beyond reasonable doubt\" is still used in Scotland.
Changed line(s) 17 (click to see context) from:
* "Beyond a reasonable doubt." / "So that you are sure" (In the UK the former was replaced by the latter because juries often had difficulty establishing what a "reasonable doubt" was.)
to:
* "Beyond a reasonable doubt." / "So that you are sure" (In the UK England the former was replaced by the latter because juries often had difficulty establishing what a "reasonable doubt" was.)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* "I can no longer represent my client in this matter." (Lawyer speak for "My client specifically asked me to lie to the court.")
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Funny that. In most other Commonwealth jurisdictions you should ask if you're allowed to do that.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 44 (click to see context) from:
* "Objection!" The CatchPhrase of the ''AceAttorney'' games. Some common objections:
to:
* "Objection!" The CatchPhrase MagicFranchiseWord of the ''AceAttorney'' games. Some common objections:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 44 (click to see context) from:
* "Objection!" The MagicFranchiseWord of the ''AceAttorney'' games. Some common objections:
to:
* "Objection!" The MagicFranchiseWord CatchPhrase of the ''AceAttorney'' games. Some common objections:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 24 (click to see context) from:
* "Does the defendant plead guilty or not guilty?"
to:
* "Does the defendant plead guilty or not guilty?"guilty?" / "How does the defendant plead?"
Added DiffLines:
** Habeas corpus is a ''right'' of all imprisoned citizens, and designed to give them a chance of representation, so that the government cannot imprison people indefinitely. You ''always'' have the right to your day in court, no matter what anyone says. At least in the US. And as long as you're not an enemy combatant...
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Hilariously, in RealLife, asking this question is just begging to get hit with an objection for relevance. If the witness is lying, you have to ''show'' it, you can't imply it.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
*** Hearsay is allowed in certain conditions. Dying Declarations (the last words of a person who ''knows'' they're dying) are popular exceptions. Reading in pre-trial discovery testimony is a much harder prospect, but is allowed in certain cases where the witness has testified before the trial itself and is now unavailable due to unforeseeable events (death, usually).
Changed line(s) 50 (click to see context) from:
*** Note that during cross-examination, a certain amount of leading is allowed, on the grounds that the person testifying is not on the side of the lawyer doing the questioning, and might need some additional pointers to reach the conclusions needed.
to:
*** Note that during cross-examination, a certain amount of leading is allowed, on the grounds that the person testifying is not on the side of the lawyer doing the questioning, and might need some additional pointers to reach the conclusions needed. See hostile witness below.
Changed line(s) 52 (click to see context) from:
** "Speculation" (the lawyer is asking the witness to essentially guess about something)
to:
** "Speculation" (the lawyer is asking the witness to essentially guess about something)something: "What did it look like the victim did for a living?")
Changed line(s) 55 (click to see context) from:
* "Order in the courtroom!" The Judge says this while banging a gavel. Failure to maintain order in the courtroom might result in expulsion from said room, or even being held in contempt.
to:
* "Order in the courtroom!" The Judge says this while banging a gavel. Failure to maintain Disruption of the order in the courtroom might result in expulsion from said room, or even being held in contempt.
Changed line(s) 67 (click to see context) from:
* "Witness, please answer the question." (If a witness is asked a question on the witness stand, they don't have the option of not answering. They must either answer the question or provide a reason why they can't (Fifth Amendment being popular). Simply stalling or avoiding the question entirely can result in contempt of court or even perjury charges.)
to:
* "Witness, please answer the question." (If a witness is asked a question on the witness stand, they don't have the option of not answering. They must either answer the question or provide a reason why they can't (Fifth Amendment being popular). Simply stalling or avoiding the question entirely can result in contempt of court or even perjury charges.)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 50,51 (click to see context) from:
** "Relevance"
** "Speculation"
** "Speculation"
to:
*** Note that during cross-examination, a certain amount of leading is allowed, on the grounds that the person testifying is not on the side of the lawyer doing the questioning, and might need some additional pointers to reach the conclusions needed.
**"Relevance"
"Relevance" (the lawyer is asking questions that have little to no bearing on the scope of the case)
**"Speculation""Speculation" (the lawyer is asking the witness to essentially guess about something)
**
**
Changed line(s) 54 (click to see context) from:
* "Order in the courtroom!" The Judge says this while banging a gavel.
to:
* "Order in the courtroom!" The Judge says this while banging a gavel. Failure to maintain order in the courtroom might result in expulsion from said room, or even being held in contempt.
** Note that simply asking the court for permission to do this is usually insufficient. You need to have a good reason to do so (the witness contradicted themselves, or have changed their testimony from pre-trial discovery). Otherwise, expect to be overruled.
*** By definition, during a cross-examination, a witness is considered hostile (they're not on the questioning lawyer's side, after all).
*** By definition, during a cross-examination, a witness is considered hostile (they're not on the questioning lawyer's side, after all).
*** In most cases in RealLife, simply saying "withdrawn" isn't enough. You could be subject to penalties or fines. If you have a reputation for constantly making inflammatory statements (see [[LawAndOrder Jack McCoy]]), you won't have any leeway at all, and you're likely to hurt your case by trying to pull this off. You'll also push yourself closer and closer to mistrial with each offense.
Changed line(s) 63,64 (click to see context) from:
* "Witness, please answer the question."
* "You don't have to answer that."
* "You don't have to answer that."
to:
* "Witness, please answer the question."
" (If a witness is asked a question on the witness stand, they don't have the option of not answering. They must either answer the question or provide a reason why they can't (Fifth Amendment being popular). Simply stalling or avoiding the question entirely can result in contempt of court or even perjury charges.)
* "You don't have to answer that."" (A judge can direct the witness not to answer if an objection to the question is sustained. The lawyers ''can't'' (and it's a punishable offense), but will try to do so anyway, at least on TV.)
* "You don't have to answer that.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Note that when the prosecution rests, they still have the option of rebuttal testimony after the defense rests, so they're not really ''done''. However, when the defense rests, they are definitively done (except for cross-examination of rebuttal witnesses).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 29 (click to see context) from:
*** Or, of course, if one of the witnesses ''other'' than the defendant was a party to the crime, or committed some other crime that comes up during cross-examination.
to:
*** Or, of course, if one of the witnesses ''other'' than the defendant was a party to the crime, or committed some other crime that comes up during cross-examination. However, considering the extent of the pre-trial preparation these days, any ''competent'' lawyer (on both sides) will avoid any such question. Unless it ''might'' help the defense, but at that point the prosecution will likely avoid calling the witness (and the rules for the defense calling a witness makes it a little more difficult for them to ask such a question).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
listed on Other Stock Phrases, but it goes better here
Added DiffLines:
* "Are you aware of the penalties for perjury?" Lawyer-ese for "I know you're lying." Similarly, there's: "May I remind you you are under oath?"
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
->'''Strongbad''': This is a [[{{Malaproper}} subpoena!]] I summons Exhibit 4-B to my chambers!
->'''Homestar''': Sustained! *[[TheDitz hits self with a gavel]]*
--->''[[HomestarRunner Strong Bad Email: Rampage]]''
->'''Homestar''': Sustained! *[[TheDitz hits self with a gavel]]*
--->''[[HomestarRunner Strong Bad Email: Rampage]]''
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Nevertheless, in AynRand's play ''Night of January 16th'', a judge forces Karen Andre to affirm despite her objecting as an atheist to the "so help you God" part.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** The more formal version of invoking the Fifth Amendment is to say "I refuse to answer on the ground it may tend to incriminate me."
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 25,27 (click to see context) from:
* "I rest my case."
**What does that even ''mean''?
*** That the prosecution or defense believes they have adequately presented their arguments and examined necessary witnesses. Basically, they' done.
**What does that even ''mean''?
*** That the prosecution or defense believes they have adequately presented their arguments and examined necessary witnesses. Basically, they' done.
to:
* "I rest my case."
**What does that even ''mean''?
*** That the" (The prosecution or defense believes they have adequately presented their arguments and examined necessary witnesses. Basically, they' they're done.)
**What does that even ''mean''?
*** That the
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 20 (click to see context) from:
* "I plead the Fifth." This refers to the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, specifically the provision that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Technically, a jury is not supposed to regard pleading the Fifth in any prejudicial light, but human nature being what it is, it's impossible to make sure that they follow that. Often subverted by people yelling the incorrect amendment.
to:
* "I plead [[strike:plead]] take the Fifth." This refers to the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, specifically the provision that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Technically, a jury is not supposed to regard pleading taking the Fifth in any prejudicial light, but human nature being what it is, it's impossible to make sure that they follow that. Often subverted by people yelling the incorrect amendment.
Changed line(s) 24 (click to see context) from:
** Some people apparently try to 'plead the fifth' in Canada, forgetting that it's a ''different country''...
to:
** Some people apparently try to 'plead 'take the fifth' in Canada, forgetting that it's a ''different country''...