# Does anyone have any courtroom expertise for this scenario?



## ironpony (Jul 5, 2016)

Usually in a trial, lawyers will approach the bench, if they do not want the jury to hear what they have to say.

But what if it's a preliminary hearing, and there is no jury, but still members of the victims in the back, as well as other people?

Would they still approach the bench, or would voicing their concerns over certain objections, be everyone in the room to hear?


----------



## Sam (Jul 5, 2016)

Very rarely will a lawyer or attorney approach the bench in a real court case, and in the event that they do, it will be at the behest of the judge to receive a warning about asking questions that aren't relevant to the case. 

The sidebar that you're talking about is a dramatic device used in television shows, but big trials like those seen on law shows every week only happen in the real world maybe once a year, if even that, and they are never as dramatic as television makes them out to be.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 5, 2016)

Okay thanks.  But what if a lawyer had something to address in court, where if the people in the back saw it, could possibly report it to the media, and that could affect potential jurors, once the case goes to trial, or the information is sensitive to the public in some other way?  Are lawyers suppose to say it out loud for all to hear anyway?


----------



## Sam (Jul 5, 2016)

What could this lawyer have to address that wasn't already relayed to the judge before the commencement of the hearing? I don't imagine that a judge would be very happy about some last-minute evidence or information being withheld from him until court was in session. At the very least, he would expect a courtesy brief. 

If something _was_ that sensitive, however, the lawyer would ask to have a private discussion with the judge in his chambers during the next recess.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 5, 2016)

Well basically in the case, one of the witnesses accuses another witness of blackmailing and threatening her, into perjuring herself on the stand, so the case will go that witnesses way.

It happens a few hours before the witness was to testify, so it's new testimony that wasn't taken before.

This causes the lawyers on both sides to want to discuss the matter, and wondering if they would speak out loud about it, or if they would do it away from the public, in the courtroom?


----------



## Sleepwriter (Jul 5, 2016)

The other side would object and ask for a stay, giving them time to review this new possible evidence.   Or the opposing lawyer would pull a gun and shoot everyone, cause he's secretly been working with the gang and found out that he &as terminal cancer and just dont care anymore.


----------



## alanmt (Jul 5, 2016)

Approaching the bench isn't that uncommon in a jury trial. I've done it a fair amount. The remedy at a preliminary hearing is to request that the Court clear the courtroom so sensitive matters could be discussed, which is more uncommon, unless the onlookers include potential witnesses.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 7, 2016)

Okay thanks.  So are lawyers okay with having witnesses be onlookers normally?  Cause if the witnesses are onlookers on the case, before they testify, they may hear things in the case, that could influence their testimony, no?


----------



## Sleepwriter (Jul 7, 2016)

Sure they can, but if they change their testimony during the trial,  they could be charged with perjury.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 7, 2016)

That's true.  However, defense can ask questions that the prosecutor will not think of perhaps, and those answers could change.  The prosecutor would not know what is perjury or not, if he does not think to ask the witness everything.


----------



## Sleepwriter (Jul 7, 2016)

If they were never asked the question, how can they change their answer?


----------



## ironpony (Jul 8, 2016)

I mean they can be planning on giving certain answers, in their head, before being called to the stand, but then when they hear other information, that could encourage them to answer differently, or be influenced.  Kind of like the same way a jury can be influenced by certain information.


----------



## Sleepwriter (Jul 8, 2016)

Well duh. That is what the jury does. They are not supposed to have preconceived notions.  They are to listen to the information and evidence laid out before them and then decide. 

You have got to get to a point where you trust yourself with what you want to happen.   If anything write some scenes out a couple different ways, and see which one you like better.


----------



## Ultraroel (Jul 8, 2016)

This American jury thing seems so unreal to me..


----------



## Sleepwriter (Jul 8, 2016)

Ultraroel said:


> This American jury thing seems so unreal to me..



It does to me to.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 8, 2016)

Okay thanks.  But what does the court do to keep witnesses from having preconceived notions in their testimonies?


----------



## Sleepwriter (Jul 8, 2016)

Seriously?

Let's think about that a second.  What can someone do to keep someone from having already formed an opinion.  Or see if they have one.   I guess they could put everyone on a lie detector.  But in reality they can do nothing.


----------



## alanmt (Jul 9, 2016)

Lawyers are not generally okay with witnesses being onlookers. They are routinely excluded from the courtroom.

Witnesses may have given oral or written statements before trial, or sworn deposition testimony. Most likely they have been asked the questions before, by police (in a criminal case) and/or attorneys. ALmost always, both sides will know what a witness is expected to testify to long before trial.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 11, 2016)

Okay thanks.  For my story, the prosecutor wants to try a defendant for kidnapping charges, but the victim is not willing to cooperate and has not given a statement prior.  In order to support the charges, does he need the word of the victim?  There are two other witnesses, but would the defense argue that the you cannot have a kidnapping charge, if the prosecution fails to produce a victim to corroborate the other witnesses, even if the victim refused to make any prior statements?

Basically the victim before said, that she does not want to press charges or say anything to get involved.  So since that's all she said before, is her testimony needed to support that a kidnapping actually occurred?  I read that in some cases, the victims word is not needed, but how does the prosecution prove a case without a victim?


----------



## Wandering Man (Jul 11, 2016)

Go to your local court on a Monday Morning.  You'll get to see a lot of things happen that will inform you.  You will also probably see some hungry lawyers hanging around, hoping the judge will appoint them to a case as a public defender.  Collar one of them and ask some of your questions.  Don't be afraid to ask basic stuff.

Then, show up for an actual trial later in the week.

This should enhance your writing greatly, and it won't take much of your time to do this little piece of research.

Lawyers are people.  People love to talk about themselves and their work.  Ask questions.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 12, 2016)

Okay thanks.  I have tried that before, but so far I have not been able to find a case that is anything like my case.  So far all the cases are very simple, and open and shut where as mine as a lot of unique technicalities that come into play, compared to most real life cases.   It seems like so far it's been apples and oranges.


----------



## Wandering Man (Jul 12, 2016)

Well, that's why you're writing fiction, isn't it? But the asking is where you'll figure out how to present your story.

You may have to bend things to get your scene. As others have pointed out things happen in the judges' chambers, through motions filed by paper, or in closed courtrooms.

I was present once when an attorney was berated by the judge for faxing a information to the judge without including the prosecutor. I was there as an expert witness and "the rule" was invoked. I ended up sitting outside the courtroom for four hours, before I was told I would not be allowed to testify. This was the punishment the judge placed on the attorney for attempting an ex parte communication.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 13, 2016)

Okay thanks for the info.  When the judge did and made you wait outside, was this during a trial or a preliminary hearing, or other?


----------



## Wandering Man (Jul 13, 2016)

It was a bench trial. No jury.

That courthouse did not allow cell phones, and the courtroom was on the 9th floor. Longest 4 hours of my life, since I had no idea if or when the bailiff was going to call me in, and I couldn't let anyone know I was still in court.

I really don't go to court very often, but I happened to be in the same court a few weeks later. The judge surprised me by apologizing for making me wait in the previous trial.

This judge famously waved her .38 revolver in the courtroom once to let folk know they better behave.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 24, 2016)

Okay thanks.  I saw that in a movie as well, where a judge pulled out a gun and fired a shot in the ceiling to get everyone to shut up when they wouldn't.  I guess that kind of thing is common maybe.


----------



## Wandering Man (Jul 24, 2016)

Well, I was going to say "no, it's not usual," but I just did a search for "judge pulls gun in court" and was surprised at how many have done that.


----------



## patskywriter (Jul 31, 2016)

ironpony said:


> Okay thanks.  I saw that in a movie as well, where a judge pulled out a gun and fired a shot in the ceiling to get everyone to shut up when they wouldn't.  I guess that kind of thing is common maybe.



I’ll bet THAT woke ’em up in the courtroom upstairs.


----------



## patskywriter (Jul 31, 2016)

Sleepwriter said:


> The other side would object and ask for a stay, giving them time to review this new possible evidence.   Or the opposing lawyer would pull a gun and shoot everyone, cause he's secretly been working with the gang and found out that he &as terminal cancer and just don't care anymore.



I thought this was hilarious … and then realized that I wish that someone would write a painstakingly detailed story and then have something like what you suggested happen. Toss everything in the air, disrupt interwoven stories, leave story lines unfinished, and end the story in a jumbled mess, all in disarray. Because that's what happens in real life when unexpected violence erupts.


----------

