witnesses

[kblow]

What is the name of your state? Washington
How is it determined, or who determines which party gets to call witnesses as "their witness"?

For example...... (In my own experience) the State put all eye witnesses present at the scene on their witness list despite the fact that at least half of us were "primarily defense witnesses"-------quoting a statement made by the presiding judge in court/and found in the VRP..... I know that court appointed defense counsel didn't attempt to create a witness list, and just let the State call all the witnesses, however if had he wanted to call certain witnesses how would he have done? Would this have been possible considering the State had already 'claimed' all witnesses?
How does this work ? Do the parties fight over who's witness is who's? I'm sure it doesn't typically come down to this, but if it did then is based upon whoever submits their witness list first? or what?
Hope this conveys my question. Thanks for any insight.....
kblow

 

[Boxcarbill]

What is the name of your state? Washington
How is it determined, or who determines which party gets to call witnesses as "their witness"?

For example...... (In my own experience) the State put all eye witnesses present at the scene on their witness list despite the fact that at least half of us were "primarily defense witnesses"-------quoting a statement made by the presiding judge in court/and found in the VRP..... I know that court appointed defense counsel didn't attempt to create a witness list, and just let the State call all the witnesses, however if had he wanted to call certain witnesses how would he have done? Would this have been possible considering the State had already 'claimed' all witnesses?
How does this work ? Do the parties fight over who's witness is who's? I'm sure it doesn't typically come down to this, but if it did then is based upon whoever submits their witness list first? or what?
Hope this conveys my question. Thanks for any insight.....
kblow

The party determines who they want to call as a witness and to insure that the witness does show up, that party is responsible for the issuance of a subponea to that witness. (They also place the name on a Witness list in those cases which require the submission of a witness list.) Usually, the litigant calls a witness that they expect to testify favorably but not always. Sometimes, as a trial strategy, a party calls an adverse witness to the stand so that they can illicit the unfavorable testimony themselves--i.e. steal the opposing side's thunder-- rather than wait for the other the other side to illicit the unfavorable testimony. Such trial tactics is a means of letting the jury know that "we have nothing to hide." Since both sides are going to get to question all witnesses called to the stand, the only real difference is in who pays the cost for issuance and service of the subponea and whether the attorney gets to question the witness by a direct or a cross-examination Q&A or whether the attorney has to request permission from the court to treat the witness as an adverse witness so that they can Q&A as a cross-- even though they are the ones who called the witness. In plain English: It doesn't make a whole helluva lot of difference who calls the witness to the stand.

 

[kblow]

Reply to Boxcarbill:
It is my understanding that the party cross examining the witness is limited (in terms of content) to the same information brought out by the party who called the witness. As such, if say the prosecution knows their witness has information potentially favorable to the defense/potentially damaging to the states case then knowing this they would likely carefully curtail their questioning of this witness as to not allow or I guess open the door for this info to be elicited on cross. So if my understanding is correct? [and please let me know if it isn't] from this perspective I would think it does make a difference who calls the witness? Yes?
Please reply cause I'd like to hear your view on this. thanks...
Also.....then--

Can both sides call the same witness? -- as to preclude the above from happening......i.e. basically so the jury might get to actually hear the truth the whole truth and nothing but.........?

Thanks again for your insight
kblow

 

[abezon]

Both sides can call the same witness.