very difficult defense help please????
I am the defence lawyer for a case. And it’s extremely difficult because all of the evidence is against my client. Anyways I am cross-examining the following witness: Dr. D. Mondale. Below is his part. Please help me come up with questions to cross examine him???
You will be called as a rebuttal witness. You are a forensic psychiatrist. You have many years of experience assessing persons who have committed acts of violence and treating persons who have behaved violently suffering various forms of mental illness. You are an associate of the Canadian Institute of Forensic Psychiatry and the authors of a textbook, which is used in medical schools in many countries. You were asked by Crown counsel to interview and assess Michael Hudson. You have also had the benefit of reading Dr. Tyrone’s reports and listening to his or her testimony. You will state that you do no agree with Dr. Tyrone’s opinions.
It continues below.
. You do not believe that Michael Hudson was sleepwalking at all when he attacked Margaret and Jack Willis. You will state that it is very rare for sleepwalkers to behave violently. You will state that the most likely explanations is that he was in a hysterical dissociating state. You believe that he was overwhelmed by his emotions and therefore his brain worked in a different way. A person in such a state can do things which he later does not recall, but he is not crazy or unconscious. You will further state that if Michael Hudson was sleepwalking when he attacked Margaret and Jack Willis, it is your professional opinion that he has an abnormal and pathological brain condition which can, as has been demonstrated, cause violent behavior. You further believe that such behavior could recur unless he is treated. You believe that the treatment should be give in a hospital setting. On cross-examination you will agree that Michael Hudson is not mentally ill or crazy in the usual sense:
He does not suffer from any form of psychosis. But you will insist that you are very concerned that if he does get proper treatment, it could happen again.
PLEASE HELP this case is extremely difficult
P.S I am only a high school student doing a mock trial in law 12.
Posted in forensic psychiatrist
content rss
December 31st, 2009 at 9:28 am
The art of cross-examination lies in using the witness’ own statements against him. You can do this in several ways:
1. Compare what he said during his direct examination at trial to what he said in any previous proceedings or written statements. If there are any discrepancies, point them out by asking him "Were you telling the truth then, or are you telling the truth now?"
2. Comb through records of previous cases he has testified in, and look for inconsistencies between his opinions in those cases and his opinion in your case. For example, if in a previous case he testified that the person WAS mentally ill, or was sleepwalking, or whatever, ask him why he’s changed his professional opinion?
3. Read any papers, articles, or textbooks he has written, and look for anything he has written that conflicts with his testimony in this case, and again, ask him WHY his opinions have changed?
4. Ask him many questions on how much time he spent going over the evidence in the case, how much time he spent with the defendant, how many tests he performed, etc.
5. I assume Dr. Tyrone is your (defense) witness. Ask Dr. Mondale whether he knows of Dr. Tyrone and why his opinion differs from that of a highly respected professional like Dr. Tyrone?
6. Find out if he is a member of any groups or organizations that might cause him to have a bias against your client. Ask him questions about whether his loyalty to these groups may be coloring his judgement.
Overall your goal is not to "prove" that anything the doctor says is "wrong," because chances are nothing he’s saying CAN be proved wrong. Your goal is simply to call into question enough of what he says, that the jury starts to wonder if maybe he isn’t QUITE as credible as Dr. Tyrone. The minute they start thinking maybe Dr. Tyrone is more trustworthy, they’ll diminish everything Dr. Mondale is saying, in their own minds, even if they don’t realize they’re doing it.
And finally……obviously if Dr. Mondale has anything in his past such as a criminal conviction, mental problems, discipline, etc., it would be wise for you to find out about them and ask him about them, as a way of getting these facts in front of the jury.
Most defense lawyers have investigators and other researchers on their staff to help them do all of this background research on witnesses. Of course "public defenders," or people who are paid by the state (or the Crown) to represent clients who can’t pay, will obviously not have the resources to hire as many investigators and staff members. So if you aren’t able to spend a lot of time researching Dr. Mondale’s past, stick to reading all of his past statements and testimony in the case with a fine-toothed comb, and point out each and every inconsistency, time when he has contradicted himself, or anything he has said that doesn’t make sense in the light of the evidence as it’s now known and understood.
Your goal is to plant doubt in the jury’s mind that Dr. Mondale is a credible, trustworthy doctor. The better you can do this, the better chance your client has of being acquitted.
December 31st, 2009 at 9:28 am
1. Doctor, you stated that it is rare for a sleepwalker to display violent behavior, however you did not state that it is impossible. What are the percentage of sleepwalkers that display some form of violent behavior?
2. You state quite clearly that you identify no form of psychosis, yet encourge the client to get treatment. If there is no psychosis, what exact treatment protocol are you recommending?
3. Is the aforementioned treatment not used for individuals diagnosed with psychosis?
4. Please explain exactly why you fail to agree with any of Dr. Tyrone’s opinions?
5. Do you agree that Dr. Tyrone is an expert in relation to sleepwalking? Then why not agree with him?
———————
Hope this helps you out a bit
Good luck with your mock trial!!!
December 31st, 2009 at 9:28 am
Dr.Mondale are you a sleepwalking specialist?
Have you ever studied sleepwalking it’s affect on the pshyche?
You say it is uncommon for sleep walkers to be violent but cases have been heard of isnt that so Dr, Mondale?
By saying he needs treatment are you not implying he has a mental problem?
YOu state that you dont believethe defendant is "mentally ill or crazy in the ‘usual’ sense"(use finger quotes around unusual) do you find all mentl illnesses to be uniform? The same for every case?
December 31st, 2009 at 9:28 am
This seems unethical to be discussing a clients case on here and using names of the people involved. I think you need to recheck your law books about publicly disclosing case details when a person is on trial. This could cause you some legal problems if the parties involved want to press it, and if the BARR wants to as well.