Good Evening,
Firstly, may I remind all parties of the court to please watch their temper and speak respectfully to one another. Next time someone steps out of line I will hold them in contempt of court.
Secondly, as a former Judge and lawyer, I would think the witness knows what their duties are in this courtroom. Which is to answer the questions of each party. There is nothing, to my knowledge, that allows for a witness to refuse to answer a question. If the question raises eyebrows, it is the job of the opposing counsel to object and argue against it, not the job of the witness. Even if there was an option for a witness to refuse to answer a question, that would most likely fall under cases of self-incrimination.
Thirdly, this is beginning to enter the region of expert testimony, which we have never had to establish in this court. Counsel is asking for the witness to give testimony about a specific field based on the knowledge they have in that field. A witness themselves can only do this to some degree. That degree solely being whether or not it is within their rationally based perception. For example (a poor one at that but nonetheless), if a lawyer were to ask if the sky is blue, a witness could use their rationally based perception, a common characterization, and say yes. If a lawyer asked why the sky is blue. Well, there might be a common understanding that it is because of light; however, for a deeper response, you may need a scientist or physicist to answer. Someone who has a good or expert understanding of the field. To establish such expert witness, it is to my understanding, that counsel must show that the witness has some form of education, skill, experience, etc. to the court. They then must move to make the witness an expert through motion. Opposing counsel will offer their objections and concerns with the motion. The court will rule. As an expert, they will be allowed to give their professional opinion on the topic on which they are an expert.
So if counsel is to continue this line of questioning, in which the witness must answer unless the Defense's counsel objects. They are to do one of two things. One, ask a question that is within the witness's rationally based perception. If opposing counsel feels that it is not, they can object. Or two, via the steps listed above, move to make the witness an expert in the field of law. In which they then can offer their professional opinion about a specific law or law in general. For this case, I would ask counsel to please state that they want to make the witness an expert and instead of the actual procedure, I will opt for a sidebar to discuss with both lawyers. This is to avoid a lengthy procedure in an already lengthy trial.
Summary: This has been a lot of information so I want to make sure we are clear on this.
1. The witness must answer all questions. If a question raises eyebrows, it is the job of opposing counsel to object. This is not anyone else's responsibility. Especially, when objections are not set. they have a lot of free reign to push for certain objections, they are more than allowed to do so.
2. If counsel is to ask this line of questioning, they must ask questions within the witnesses' rationally based perception, or move to make them an expert. If they do choose to make the witness an expert, they are to say so and we will have a quick sidebar (basically both lawyers and myself will go into a dm) and we will discuss how to proceed.
I ask that the counsel reask any questions they may have. We will start right off after question 6, going right into question 7 and on.
If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask.
That is all,
Thank You
