Submitted 1 year ago by TheBananaKing@lemmy.world to nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
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?
He who represents himself has a fool for a client.
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 am not sure if it is common place; however Rodney Alcala famously cross-examined himself
ShunkW@lemmy.world 1 year ago
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.