Upon reading these notes, you will conclude that Kibatala is a novice lawyer

[Wildchild]

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.

https://www.ca.cjis20.org/pdf/judge/AnnoyingThingsLawyersDo.pdf

Hiyo ni sawa na mtuhumia anavyochukuwa, hivyo mbambikaji akiambiwa amesema uongo kashutumiwa sio au ndio Ile maana mkuki mchungu kwa mbinadamu ila kwa mnyama ni mtamu.

 

[Wildchild]

ushahidi wa Kaaya na dada wa mbege katika kibonzo

www.jamiiforums.com

Huyo anaweza kuwa ndio yule wa chabo ya dayari na simu +kalamu, hapo akiambiwa alikuwa anakula chabo na mwongo vichwa maji wanasema haifai kumwita shahidi mwongo.

 

[James Martin]

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.

https://www.ca.cjis20.org/pdf/judge/AnnoyingThingsLawyersDo.pdf

Wameshaanza kumuonea wivu wakili msomi Kibatala. Ukiwa mahiri kwenye fani yako lazima watatokea wenye kukuonea husda.

 

[Wildchild]

Wameshaanza kumuonea wivu wakili msomi Kibatala. Ukiwa mahiri kwenye fani yako lazima watatokea wenye kukuonea husda.

Yamekasirika uongo wao na uzushi unavyowndelea kuanikwa hadharani katika likesi lao la kubambikia.

 

[comte]

Hiyo ni sawa na mtuhumia anavyochukuwa, hivyo mbambikaji akiambiwa amesema uongo kashutumiwa sio au ndio Ile maana mkuki mchungu kwa mbinadamu ila kwa mnyama ni mtamu.

unaonyesha tu na mwisho unaandika kwenye wakilisho la mwisho ambapo shahidi anakuwa hayupo wala hatajua kuwa umeonyesha kuwa yeye ni muongo. Kuontesha kuwa shahidi ni muungo si kinyume cha taratibu ila kumwambia kuwa ni muungo siyo sawa.

 

[Wildchild]

unaonyesha tu na mwisho unaandika kwenye wakilisho la mwisho ambapo shahidi anakuwa hayupo wala hatajua kuwa umeonyesha kuwa yeye ni muongo. Kuontesha kuwa shahidi ni muungo si kinyume cha taratibu ila kumwambia kuwa ni muungo siyo sawa.

Sawa nini kama kadiri ya mtiririko wa mahojiano mfuatano wa majibu unajichanganyachanganya, tafsiri ya kwanza ni kuwa upo uongo ndani yake, kumtahadharisha juu ya Hilo ni pamoja na kumkumbusha ikiwa njia moja wapo ni ya kumwambia uongo wake. Na kutaka ajitete.

 

[fazili]

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.

https://www.ca.cjis20.org/pdf/judge/AnnoyingThingsLawyersDo.pdf

Are you convinced or convicted with your posting mr comte?

 

[fazili]

Mie simuongelei Mbowe hapa-naongelea uchanga wa kitaaluma wa Kibatala

Tungependa kuongelea uhalali wa mwenendo mzima wa kesi na mashtaka dhidi ya Mbowe na sio uchanga wa kitaaluma wa Kibatala.

 

[Bulamba]

It appears you are convinced that the witnesses are lying

I have that feeling.That this case has been manufactured for political reasons like what is happening in Rwanda.

 

[Bulamba]

Hivi Fatma hakurudishiwa leseni?
El- Maamry Kama sikosei ni wakili maarufu hapa Tz ila wadau watadhibitisha

Mzee El Maamry amefariki mwaka huu

 

[Nyamizi]

Andika Kwa Kiswahili tukuekewe. IMENIACHA.

Sasa mbona na wewe hueleweki pamoja na kuandika kiswahili.

 

[comte]

Tungependa kuongelea uhalali wa mwenendo mzima wa kesi na mashtaka dhidi ya Mbowe na sio uchanga wa kitaaluma wa Kibatala.

Anzisha uzi mkuu tutajadili tu

 

[comte]

Are you convinced or convicted with your posting mr comte?

Yes i am

 

[Imeloa]

You need to divulge your identity to be able to question the credentials of the learned counsel otherwise hiding behind pseudonym shows that you're not sincere in your challenge and that your endeavouring to tarnish the good image of the learned counsel just to justify the stipends you're getting from your paymasters.

It seems the learned counsel's defensive approach to this trumped up litigation is a cause for concern to his client's persecutors like you in particular and your paymasters in general, hence your baseless challenge.

 

[Imeloa]

that is OK but calling a witness a liar is improper

It's normal to call a witness a liar unless you want us to believe that only angels are allowed to testify in law courts.

 

[NewPage]

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.

https://www.ca.cjis20.org/pdf/judge/AnnoyingThingsLawyersDo.pdf

You know nothing about cross-examination. Your copy and paste post reveals greatly you hatred to Kibatala! Pyuuuuuu!

 

[fazili]

Yes i am

I guess you’re convicted by your post, right?

 

[KalamuTena]

Kibatala is a person I have known for over 20 years is not very bright person but very manipulative. He is an activist and this is the spirit that endear him to most people. Our learned friends Mutobesya and Malya will finally take the day in this case.

You 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.

 

[comte]

You need to divulge your identity to be able to question the credentials of the learned counsel otherwise hiding behind pseudonym shows that you're not sincere in your challenge and that your endeavouring to tarnish the good image of the learned counsel just to justify the stipends you're getting from your paymasters.

It seems the learned counsel's defensive approach to this trumped up litigation is a cause for concern to his client's persecutors like you in particular and your paymasters in general, hence your baseless challenge.

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

 

[comte]

You 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.

Your praise made me have a critical look at his conduct and he is failing big time in the courtroom decorum. His activism background is his big limitation