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?
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?