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

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

comte said:
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.


Click to expand...
Unateseka sana chief. Angalia usije kufa kwa ugonjwa wa moyo ukipigania usichokielewa
 
Huyu kiumbe anamchukia sana Mbowe, sijui alimkosea nini wakati Mbowe hajawahi kuwa hata kiongozi wa serikali!
kagoshima said:
Unateseka sana chief. Angalia usije kufa kwa ugonjwa wa moyo ukipigania usichokielewa
Click to expand...
 
comte said:
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.
Click to expand...
"... what MATTER is... " 🙄 "Copy and paste" is easier than writing own words. Grammar failed you, learned bro! 😁
 

Kila siku Jumapili iwe siku ya amani na upendo mkuu kwa wote hapa JF

Iwe siku maalum ya kujizuia kuandika nyuzi na comments za kuudhi wengine kwa makusudi. Iwe siku maalumu ya kutoandika posti za kufurahia mateso, dhuluma na madhila ya wengine hata tusiowapenda. Iwe siku ya wote kuandika posti za kuwatakia heri wale wote wanaoteseka na kufanyiwa dhuluma sehemu...
www.jamiiforums.com www.jamiiforums.com
 
comte said:
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.


Click to expand...
Kibatala ni wakili msomi pekee hapa afrika aliye kama shahidi akiwa na kibuti mahakamani.
 
comte said:
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.


Click to expand...
ARE YOU A LAWYER??? au umeandika upate 7000
 
comte said:
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.


Click to expand...
Why are you wasting your time with a "novice" lawyer; unless you're deranged!
 
comte said:
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.


Click to expand...
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.
N.a. ninakumbuka kuna moja alisema tuite Koleo ni Koleo na Sio kijiko kikubwa
 
comte said:
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.


Click to expand...
Based on this jabbering and rumbling presentation alone, if you are a lawyer, then you must be a very rouse one!
 
The Boss said:
Watakao kupinga hawajakuelewa....
Umemzungumzia Kibatala alone ..
Wala sio defensive team ya Mbowe yenye lawyers wengine ...
Click to expand...
Na maana hasa ya kumlenga Kibatala ni ipi kama sio kuwanyima utulivu wanaomtakia mteja wake maovu!
Inaeleweka, kwa baadhi ya watu kama huyu 'comte' kufikiri kuwa kusifu kazi nzuri inayofanywa na hasimu ni dhambi, kwa hiyo hutafuta kasoro zisizokuwa na nguvu zozote kwenye maamuzi ya kesi ili mradi tu kuifurahisha nafsi yao.
Wanasahau kwamba wanavyofikiri wao sio wanavyofikiri wengine wanaosoma na kuelewa maana ya wanayoyaandika kwa uchungu moyoni.
 
comte said:
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.


Click to expand...
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!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Our Community

Regional Communities

Back
Top Bottom
Menu
Forums
New posts
Log in
Register