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?
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.
Criminal defense attorney here, confirming this is correct in at least every jurisdiction I’m aware of.
But as always, it’s best to contact a lawyer in the same jurisdiction of the court to know for sure.
I tried calling my lawyer but it just says “You have no unheard messages…”
His phone must be acting up.
Have you considered sending them a text message? Sometimes they can read your mind and do exactly what you are doing.
In this case you’d be contacting yourself though.
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).
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.
Permission to treat the witness as hostile?
He who represents himself has a fool for a client.
I am not sure if it is common place; however Rodney Alcala famously cross-examined himself
I couldn’t find any information about calling yourself in court as witness while you’re being represented by yourself. The best I could find is this information about self representation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
