Hongera. Try to recheck your grammar before sending a chat. Proof reading is a very basic practice to show that your are smart. Ni wazo tu.Kati ya watanzania waliosomeshwa kiingereza vizuri na watanzania nami nimo
Unateseka sana chief. Angalia usije kufa kwa ugonjwa wa moyo ukipigania usichokielewaAccusing 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.
Unateseka sana chief. Angalia usije kufa kwa ugonjwa wa moyo ukipigania usichokielewa
DuhMie simuongelei Mbowe hapa-naongelea uchanga wa kitaaluma wa Kibatala
"... what MATTER is... " 🙄 "Copy and paste" is easier than writing own words. Grammar failed you, learned bro! 😁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.
[emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787]"... what MATTER is... " [emoji849] "Copy and paste" is easier than writing own words. Grammar failed you, learned bro! [emoji16]
Polisi: lakini....Mie simuongelei Mbowe hapa-naongelea uchanga wa kitaaluma wa Kibatala
Kibatala ni wakili msomi pekee hapa afrika aliye kama shahidi akiwa na kibuti mahakamani.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.
ARE YOU A LAWYER??? au umeandika upate 7000Accusing 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.
Why are you wasting your time with a "novice" lawyer; unless you're deranged!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.
Kwa msingi huo Kibatala ata shindwa hiyo kesi , hivyo anza kushangilia huo wahindi. Na kwa Mantiki hiyo mawakili wa Serikali na Mashahidi wao wanazidi Kibatala.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.
Based on this jabbering and rumbling presentation alone, if you are a lawyer, then you must be a very rouse one!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.
Na maana hasa ya kumlenga Kibatala ni ipi kama sio kuwanyima utulivu wanaomtakia mteja wake maovu!Watakao kupinga hawajakuelewa....
Umemzungumzia Kibatala alone ..
Wala sio defensive team ya Mbowe yenye lawyers wengine ...
Mimi ninakushauri badala ya kumzungumzia Kibatala ungezungumzia umuhimu wa kesi hii ambayo mpaka sasa upande wa mashitaka haujaweka hadharani vitendea kazi vya ugaidi zaidi ya mizunguruko ya mjini Moshi mpaka Dar!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.