• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Trial Transcripts

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jimmy Buffet

New member
This is actually a question pertaining to a criminal trial in a Canadian court so I don't know if anyone here will be able to answer it. I'm going to ask anyway and see what happens.

Hypothetically, suppose someone opts to stand trial on a criminal charge. At the trial, both the accused and the accuser give testimony. The judge decides to send the accused for psychiatric evaluation and adjourns the trial until the evaluation is completed. Before doing so however, he orders transcripts of the trial testimony -- but only the defendant's testimony. Is that odd? Why would he order only transcripts of the defendant's testimony? Was it right of the judge to make only the defendant's testimony available for scrutiny and examination? That seems odd to me, but I'm not a lawyer. What do you think?
 

quincy

Senior Member
This is actually a question pertaining to a criminal trial in a Canadian court so I don't know if anyone here will be able to answer it. I'm going to ask anyway and see what happens.

Hypothetically, suppose someone opts to stand trial on a criminal charge. At the trial, both the accused and the accuser give testimony. The judge decides to send the accused for psychiatric evaluation and adjourns the trial until the evaluation is completed. Before doing so however, he orders transcripts of the trial testimony -- but only the defendant's testimony. Is that odd? Why would he order only transcripts of the defendant's testimony? Was it right of the judge to make only the defendant's testimony available for scrutiny and examination? That seems odd to me, but I'm not a lawyer. What do you think?
FreeAdvice addresses U.S. law questions and U.S. legal concerns only. Sorry.
 

Just Blue

Senior Member
This is actually a question pertaining to a criminal trial in a Canadian court so I don't know if anyone here will be able to answer it. I'm going to ask anyway and see what happens.

Hypothetically, suppose someone opts to stand trial on a criminal charge. At the trial, both the accused and the accuser give testimony. The judge decides to send the accused for psychiatric evaluation and adjourns the trial until the evaluation is completed. Before doing so however, he orders transcripts of the trial testimony -- but only the defendant's testimony. Is that odd? Why would he order only transcripts of the defendant's testimony? Was it right of the judge to make only the defendant's testimony available for scrutiny and examination? That seems odd to me, but I'm not a lawyer. What do you think?
US Law only.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
I know it’s hypothetical AND Canadian and it isn’t really a legal question and the question itself is pretty universal so,


Why does the op think ordering only the defendants testimony would be odd? After all, the defendant, not the victim is who is undergoing a psych evaluation. What value would the victims testimony be in a psych evaluation of the defendant?


So, no, I don’t think it’s odd

The judge would order only the defendants transcript because the psych evaluation involves only the defendant


The transcript isn’t a him against somebody else so there is no issue of it being fair or not in not ordering the victims transcript. The defendants transcript is being reviewed by a doctor to determine the mental capacity of the defendant.


And what do I think?

I think if you couldn’t answer this homework question without help your intended career is doomed
 

quincy

Senior Member
U.S. law only. For good reason. The laws in other countries (even those in our close neighbor, Canada) can be VASTLY different from the laws in the U.S.

It is of little value to anyone to guess at answers.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
U.S. law only. For good reason. The laws in other countries (even those in our close neighbor, Canada) can be VASTLY different from the laws in the U.S.

It is of little value to anyone to guess at answers.
If this was actually a legal question I would agree but this isn’t really a legal question. It’s a situation concerning when a person has a psych evaluation, what some other layman says about them has nothing to do with the evaluation. It’s actually a medical based issue rather than a legal one. The methods involved are the same between the two countries. You gather information about and statements by the patient because that is how you evaluate the patient.

The fact the question happened to involve the patients testimony is actually irrelevent. The testimony is simply statements by the patient the doctor can review in attempting to evaluate the patient.
 

quincy

Senior Member
So ... you think that a hypothetical question posed by a Canadian poster about what a Canadian judge might or might not have done in a criminal trial in a Canadian court is something we should answer on this forum?
 

justalayman

Senior Member
The issue of it involving a transcript is a red herring. The question asked has nothing to do with the fact it involves a transcript of the testimony.

The answer to the question involves medical issues, not legal issues.
 

quincy

Senior Member
So .., you think a hypothetical medical question posed by a Canadian poster about a Canadian judge's possible decision in a criminal trial in a Canadian court is something we should answer on this forum?
 

justalayman

Senior Member
So .., you think a hypothetical medical question posed by a Canadian poster about a Canadian judge's possible decision in a criminal trial in a Canadian court is something we should answer on this forum?
Given it wasn’t medical advice but merely explaining why only statements by the patient were sought, Ive got no problem with it.

Again, it has nothing to do with it being a judge other than the kudge apparently has the right to order a psych evaluation. Other than that it would be no different than if it was two people walking down the street that both talked to the same hot dog salesman. If a doctor wannted to perform a psych evaluation on one of them he wouldn’t ask the hot dog salesman what the other person said but only what the patient said.

Do you feel it is overreaching to tell a person why the doctor only talked to the hot dog salesman about the patient and didn’t ask about the other person?
 

quincy

Senior Member
I don't think this forum generally addresses hypothetical questions asked by posters from other countries about what might have happened in criminal trials in their countries.
 

quincy

Senior Member
Perhaps not a Captain...but at times a bit of a drill sergeant. :giggle:
Although I'm cool with that ;), I only asked justalayman if he thought we should answer hypothetical questions asked by posters from other countries about what happens in their foreign courts.

Apparently he thinks yes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
Top