Eduardo Dâmaso is a witness for both parties.
Can somebody explain how this can possibly be, or is it a mistake? There is no system of law I have ever heard of where someone can be a witness for BOTH parties.
I discovered it was possible, Chinagirl, but finally why not ?
The fact a witness takes the stand for the accusation (or the defence) doesn't mean s/he's "for" one party. The witness is not supposed to give opinions but say what s/he saw, heard, observed, did. Before the witness states, the lawyer of the party which called the witness tells the judge on which "lines" the witness will be interrogated (the document to which these references correspond isn't available). When the judge overrules sometimes, it's because the question goes beyond those lines.
In the case of the "double witness", he was first interrogated on the lines indicated by the accusation and then on the lines indicated by the lawyer of the defence who called him. Yesterday, one of the witnesses had been called by two lawyers of the defence. First GA's lawyer indicated the references of his lines and, after the witness had been cross examined, G&P's lawyer indicated which were her lines.