Start at 1:13, DG touches Rod, interesting.
This might be helpful for you.
http://www.crcvc.ca/docs/A_Victims_Guide_to_the_Canadian_CJS_07.pdf
and this
Thanks! That's a great chart of the basics of a trial. I understand those concepts, not very different from what we do here.
I do think that it is strange that the defense does not present it's opening statements until the Crown has finished presenting their case. I remember from high school that here in the US the defense has the option to do it that way, and I verified that on Wiki. In the Wiki it said that it is not often done since it allows the Crown's case to go unchallenged for so long.
That is especially interesting in this case since DD isn't doing much in the way of cross-examining the witnesses. He's not really putting anything out there at all. I really wish that Court TV could cover this trial because I would like to hear what the analysts would have to say about Derstine's approach. Of course they can't because of the publication ban and probably wouldn't anyway because it is a Canadian case, which is very sad.
Its going to be interesting to see how Derstine cross-examines TLM, up to this point he really hasn't had to show his hand so to speak. I wonder if that could be intentional? If he goes easy on TLM I'll fall off the couch or whatever I'm sitting on. Hopefully I won't be out with the iphone.
As far as my question up thread about recalling a witness after it was brought up in relation to Derstine... In general I was wondering about that because while you hear that during a trial, I don't really know what the technicalities are. To me it would seem that all of the witnesses should remain available to be called back to the stand in case in case something comes up during the trial after their testimony that they need to elaborate on, refute etc. And there were things that I have seen in a trial when it comes to the recall of a witness that were not mentioned in the Wiki so I was just wondering if I could get some help with that.
Back to Derstine's defense... it was mentioned that we haven't seen tweets about him asking if he could recall witnesses. We don't know that he hasn't, he could be and its not being tweeted. I was just wondering how that works, what happens if he didn't ask? Its no big deal, I was just wondering.
I'm also just making sure that I'm not taking it for granted that our court procedures are the same as yours. When we were talking about disclosure in another thread I really was blown away that prior to 1991 you all didn't have any requirements that the Crown let the defense know what evidence they have. It does explain why the defense's opening statements are not made until the Crown has presented their case. Prior to 1991 the defense wouldn't know what evidence they were refuting. I don't know what else could be different.
Anyway, thanks for posting, you do put up helpful links.
