0

A and B are innocents in the case, but B hired a fake lawyer, who acts crazy in the court.

A: He thinks you should give it to him? What was he before he was a lawyer, a comedian? (give it means handing over the case.)

B: How can it hurt? If he doesn't ask the right questions, your lawyer will, right?

A: He could still fu*k things up.There's more to cross-examination than knowing what to say. It's knowing what not to say.Look, let's say he asks all the possible questions, right? And the witness has all the answers. He ends up proving the prosecution's case.

Does it means that A and B have done the crime?

1
  • No, it says nothing about the actual guilt and innocence of the accused. It just means that the defense lawyer could help the prosecution's lawyer win if the defense lawyer asks too much. May 16, 2017 at 7:53

1 Answer 1

0

In this case, A is saying that if B's lawyers screws up, instead of supporting the case of the defendants (A and B), B's lawyer's questions with the witness will help the case of the prosecution. The prosecution is the lawyer or team of lawyers prosecuting the defendants. By "proving the prosecution's case," that does not mean "A and B are guilty" as much as "the prosecution has a better case than the defense, so the judge/jury will say A and B are guilty."

1
  • This is the right idea but I don't think it is quite correct. The point is that in English trials, the witnesses are not allowed to "make speeches to the court." They are only allowed to answer the questions they have been asked by the lawyers representing both sides. If they attempt to give more information, they will be stopped by the judge and the jury will be told to ignore what they just said. So, a good lawyer never asks a question where the answer might help his/her opponent to win. The court procedure in other countries may be different, of course.
    – alephzero
    Oct 2, 2017 at 14:45

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .