Do witness statements have any relevance at a trial?

[Robittybob1]

Do witness statements have any relevance at a trial?

[slartibartfast]

The statements cannot be used against them... Apart from gerrys arguido statement

If a person becomes an arguido, they automatically gain certain rights that a witness or suspect would not have.[7] An arguido has the right to be accompanied by a lawyer when questioned.[5] The investigating police may ask the arguido more direct accusatory questions (the answers to which would not be admissible in court if possibly self-incriminatory and asked of a non-arguido) but the arguido must be presented with whatever evidence is held against them,[7] and unlike a witness has the right to remain silent,[8] not to answer any question that may incriminate the person, and does not face legal action for lying.[9]

Witnesses in criminal investigations are legally bound to co-operate with the police and do not have the right to silence and face legal actions if they lie.[7][9] Because of the legal advantages, some individuals apply for arguido status to be given to themselves, e.g. when it would appear that the police suspect them but are trying to use their witness status to extract as much information as possible.[7]

[Mr Gray]

The statements cannot be used against them... Apart from gerrys arguido statement

If a person becomes an arguido, they automatically gain certain rights that a witness or suspect would not have.[7] An arguido has the right to be accompanied by a lawyer when questioned.[5] The investigating police may ask the arguido more direct accusatory questions (the answers to which would not be admissible in court if possibly self-incriminatory and asked of a non-arguido) but the arguido must be presented with whatever evidence is held against them,[7] and unlike a witness has the right to remain silent,[8] not to answer any question that may incriminate the person, and does not face legal action for lying.[9]

Witnesses in criminal investigations are legally bound to co-operate with the police and do not have the right to silence and face legal actions if they lie.[7][9] Because of the legal advantages, some individuals apply for arguido status to be given to themselves, e.g. when it would appear that the police suspect them but are trying to use their witness status to extract as much information as possible.[7]

The investigating police may ask the arguido more direct accusatory questions (the answers to which would not be admissible in court if possibly self-incriminatory and asked of a non-arguido)...... and does not face legal action for lying


there you are...confirmation of what i have said

[Venturi Swirl]

Are you seriously trying to suggest that a defence solicitor at any trial of Jimmy the Abductor would not be allowed to question witnesses about what they told the police at the outset of the investigation? If they are allowed to cross examine the witnesses, then everything they respond with, about what told the police becomes admissible as evidence.
I'd like to see them try to get a conviction under those conditions, if that is what you are seriously is suggesting.

Even at their own trial, if there was one, the prosecutor would still be within his legal right to ask them questions about what they all told the police at the outset of the investigation.  Making their responses admissible evidence.

What relevance do you think Gerry’s witness statement with regard to which door he used to get into the apartment would have in the trial of an abductor? 

[Mr Gray]

Are you seriously trying to suggest that a defence solicitor at any trial of Jimmy the Abductor would not be allowed to question witnesses about what they told the police at the outset of the investigation? If they are allowed to cross examine the witnesses, then everything they respond with, about what told the police becomes admissible as evidence.
I'd like to see them try to get a conviction under those conditions, if that is what you are seriously is suggesting.

Even at their own trial, if there was one, the prosecutor would still be within his legal right to ask them questions about what they all told the police at the outset of the investigation.  Making their responses admissible evidence.

i answerred this post by faith..


And will be used against him if the case ever comes to court.

Gerrys witness statement cannot be used against him...for the reasons i have previousy posted.

[Mr Gray]

Every relevance if I was sitting on the jury. I would be left with no other option than to find poor old Jimmy not guilty after listening to the two completely different versions of the last time the father claims to have seen the child alive. If they were to plead guilty after providing a strong confession, that's a different matter. In both those scenarios, there'd be no trial, only sentencing but I won't be holding breathe for that one.

and that is the problem with trial by jury...members of the public with average intelligence understanding the facts

[Mr Gray]

Gerry could legally be questioned at any trial by either side on what he told the police. The answers would be admissible. If anyone doesn't know what they're talking about IMO, it's you.

gerry could of course be questioned at any trial but if he was the defendant his witness statements would not be admissable.....the prosecution would nt be able to refer to his witness statements

[Mr Gray]

The accused in any case is legally obliged to answer any questions, including questions about what they told the police in their previous witness statements. That make the answers to those questions admissible evidence.
.

you are totally wrong......the accused is not legally obliged to answer any questions...shall we just establish you are wrong there first

[Brietta]

The accused in any case is legally obliged to answer any questions, including questions about what they told the police in their previous witness statements. That make the answers to those questions admissible evidence.
.

I think you may have got that the wrong way round.  There is no protection for witnesses ... they are obliged to answer all questions put to them.

Arguidos have the right to be accompanied by a lawyer and also have the right not to answer questions.

[Mr Gray]

Then that's fine, they don't have to answer, but how do you think that would go with a jury.

 so now you admit you are wrong...having told me I dont know what im talking about...
the prosecution cannot refer to witness statemnets...if they did the jury would be discharged and the trial abandoned....thats why they have arguido status

[Venturi Swirl]

Every relevance if I was sitting on the jury. I would be left with no other option than to find poor old Jimmy not guilty after listening to the two completely different versions of the last time the father claims to have seen the child alive. If they were to plead guilty after providing a strong confession, that's a different matter. In both those scenarios, there'd be no trial, only sentencing but I won't be holding breathe for that one.

Goodness me, so you would disregard all the other evidence collected regarding the defendant’s involvement and come to a not guilty verdict based on Gerry’s statements?  Incredible!

[Mr Gray]

If anyone's got it wrong, it's you. We are discussing the admissibility of their witness testimony in a court of law where lawyers cannot accompany the accused into the witness box. There, they're on own.

you have been shown to be wrong once,,...and you are wrong again.........its basic law....miranda rights ...interview under caution...its non self incrimination...you are wrong...and faith was wrong...

[Robittybob1]

Only an arguido can incriminate themself... A witness cannot

I think you've got that wrong.  Witnesses were not allowed to be asked questions that would incriminate themselves.  "Did you abduct MBM?"  That would be an incriminating question.

[Mr Gray]

The defence and prosecution can both question witnesses about their witness testimony in those statements and it happens at every trial. You're not the best at admitting your wrong, but your still good fun IMO.

im not wrong Im absolutely right...Ive been involved in several legal cases...successfully sued a solicitor when my barrister told me i had no case....im involved in  a fraud trial at the moment...as the victim

[Mr Gray]

I think you've got that wrong.  Witnesses were not allowed to be asked questions that would incriminate themselves.  "Did you abduct MBM?"  That would be an incriminating question.

no im right as you confirm...a witness cannot incriminate themeselves...their stateemnts are not admissable as evidence against them....i know exactly what Im talking about