IKUNGURU IJIRU CHUKU
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 27, 2021
- 484
- 545
Safi Sana Kibatala Oyeeee. Namkubaki huyu mwamba. Unajua Ujaji NI cheo Tu. Ungekuwa majaji wanajiteua wenyewe Kibatala ANGEKUWA Jaji
Safi Sana Kibatala Oyeeee. Namkubaki huyu mwamba. Unajua Ujaji NI cheo Tu. Ungekuwa majaji wanajiteua wenyewe Kibatala ANGEKUWA Jajisee for your self the proof of the novice and unethical of Kibatala
Kibatala: Mwambie Jaji hujui kuwa ulikuja kutoa ushahidi kuhusu kesi ndogo katika kesi kubwa kuhusu malekezo ya Adamoo.
Shahidi: Hilo sifahamu.
Kibatala: OK. Kumbe tupo na shahidi ambaye hajui amekuja kufanya nini mahakamani.
Wakili wa Serikali: OBJECTION. Tunaomba maswali ya Kibatala yazingatie utu na kuacha udhalilishaji.
Jaji: Kama amabavyo tunazungumzia ukamataji na mambo ya utu kuzingatia naomba na hapa amahakamani tuzingatie mambo ya utu ya kumtendea mtu.
Utabaki kusema HIVYO. Narudia tena ungekuwa majaji wanajiteua wenyewe ninauhakika ANGEKUWA jajiAfadhali kuwa mjinga kuliko kuwa wakili asiye na maadili kama Kibatala
Annoying things lawyers do over and over
(1) Asking a witness, especially a party witness, to read out loud from a document that is in evidence. This is an annoying waste of time, and if asked of an adverse party witness, certain to result in evasive, nonresponsive, self-serving and argumentative answers from the witness. Asking a witness to read out loud from a document in evidence is probative of nothing except that the witness is literate and can read, which is never an issue anyway. If the document is not in evidence, the witness cannot read out loud from it under any circumstances. The witness can look at it to refresh her memory, for instance, or look at it and read it silently if asked to identify a document, but until the document is in evidence, the witness cannot read out loud from it. After a document has been admitted into evidence, by stipulation or by authentication and identification and relevance, if an advocate wishes some part of the document to be highlighted to the finder of fact, the jury or the judge in a bench trial, the advocate can publish the significant portions to the finder of fact, which means let the jury or the judge look at it and read it silently to themselves.
Kibatala anafanya hayo hayo
Kibatala: Naomba unisomee hapa katika PGO kuhusu notebook.
Shahidi: Inasema kuhusiana na kuwa na notebook lakini silazimishwi kama nakumbuka kila kitu Mahakamani.
Kibatala: Sihitaji tafsiri yako.
Jaji: (Anaingilia kati nakusema) Naona mmechoka.
Kibatala anataka irudiwe kusomwa sehemu ya saba. Panatokea mvutano kidogo wa kisheria.
Baada ya mvutano Jaji anatoa dakika 10 mawakili wapumzishe vichwa vyao kuhusu mabishano ya shahidi kusoma PGO.
Kwa stahili hii atabaki kuwa wakili wa kesi za CHADEMA
Sehemu kubwa ya wanasheria wetu ni empty kabisa, bali sifa ya kuwa wanasheria tu. Kama defense attorney anauliza swali ambalo ni argumentative, na speculative inabidi state attorney aweke objection. Sasa iwapo state attorney naye analala mpaka maswali ambayo ni argumentative, speculative , vague and ambiguous yanaingia kwenye court proceedings basi pande zote mbili zinapwaya.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.
MANJI AMKATAA WAKILI KIBATALA KORTINIWewe unatoa povu humu na jina bandia unakuja kumkosoa Kibatala jinga kabisa
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.
Uko sawa mkuu- tunashida kila sehemu bahati mbaya hatutaki kusemwa wala kujisemaSehemu kubwa ya wanasheria wetu ni empty kabisa, bali sifa ya kuwa wanasheria tu. Kama defent attorney anauliza swali ambalo ni argumentative, na speculative inabidi state attorney aweke objection. Sasa iwapo attorney naye analala mpaka maswali ambayo ni argumentative, speculative , vague and ambiguous yanaingia kwenye court proceedings basi pande zote mbili zinapwaya.
Mkuu mbona unaleta mambo ya mbali- mimi siko huko - hoja yangu hapa inahusu uadilifu wa Kibatala kama wakili kutokana na mwenendo wake kwenye kesi anapowauliza mashahidi- NINASEMA HAUKO SAWA. ANA MAPUNGUFU. Akiyatibu mapema anaweza kuwa wakili mzuri; kwa sasa BADO.Wew jamaa subiri siku ujichanganye serikali ikuundie zengwe kama hili ndo utajua hujui. Mawakili wa utetezi wanatumia mbinu zao zote ili kuwachekecha Polisi watoe ushahidi wa ukweli.
Kibatala bado ni wakili mzuri sana. Sifa ya wakili mzuri ni kucheza kulingana na staili ya mpinzani wako. Kama shahidi kashikwa na simu, notebook na peni akijaribu kukariri ushuhuda aliopikiwa unategemea nin? Polisi wanasema waliwasafirisha watuhumiwa (tena wa ugaidi) kwa amani kabisa kutoka Moshi hadi Dar! Hii haihitaji akili ya Kibatala kujua ni "cooked data". Polisi wa Tz hawezi kukusafirisha kishkaji hivyo, ukweli ni kwamba jamaa waliteswaMkuu mbona unaleta mambo ya mbali- mimi siko huko - hoja yangu hapa inahusu uadilifu wa Kibatala kama wakili kutokana na mwenendo wake kwenye kesi anapowauliza mashahidi- NINASEMA HAUKO SAWA. ANA MAPUNGUFU. Akiyatibu mapema anaweza kuwa wakili mzuri; kwa sasa BADO.
Sasa rudi kwenye mada yako kuu hapo juu.see for your self the proof of the novice and unethical of Kibatala
Kibatala: Mwambie Jaji hujui kuwa ulikuja kutoa ushahidi kuhusu kesi ndogo katika kesi kubwa kuhusu malekezo ya Adamoo.
Shahidi: Hilo sifahamu.
Kibatala: OK. Kumbe tupo na shahidi ambaye hajui amekuja kufanya nini mahakamani.
Wakili wa Serikali: OBJECTION. Tunaomba maswali ya Kibatala yazingatie utu na kuacha udhalilishaji.
Jaji: Kama amabavyo tunazungumzia ukamataji na mambo ya utu kuzingatia naomba na hapa amahakamani tuzingatie mambo ya utu ya kumtendea mtu.
Real?Sasa rudi kwenye mada yako kuu hapo juu.
Hii ndiyo inayomfanya Kibatala awe 'novice lawyer'?
Unaacha 'substantive issues' unakimbilia maswala ambayo hayana uzito wowote, halafu una-'disparage' uwezo wa wakili juu ya hilo?
You got a none issue agenda that merrits no further waste of time.
Sidhani kama kibatala ana kesi yoyote zaidi ya kuwakilisha CHADEMAKibatala bado ni wakili mzuri sana. Sifa ya wakili mzuri ni kucheza kulingana na staili ya mpinzani wako. Kama shahidi kashikwa na simu, notebook na peni akijaribu kukariri ushuhuda aliopikiwa unategemea nin? Polisi wanasema waliwasafirisha watuhumiwa (tena wa ugaidi) kwa amani kabisa kutoka Moshi hadi Dar! Hii haihitaji akili ya Kibatala kujua ni "cooked data". Polisi wa Tz hawezi kukusafirisha kishkaji hivyo, ukweli ni kwamba jamaa waliteswa
Takataka imeandika kidhungu,pala hakuna kesi ni kupoteza muda tuAccusing 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.
Mungu hajawai kuumba mwanasheria- mimi ni kiumbe, mwanadamu na mtu- nitambue hivyo tu inatosha
Jinga la wikiIt 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.
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.