• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

FREE HOSTILE WITNESS PDF William Lashner | 608 pages | 01 Feb 2003 | HarperCollins Publishers (Australia) Pty Ltd | 9780061009884 | English | New South Wales, Australia Hostile witness - Wikipedia As IMDb Hostile Witness its 30th birthday, we have six shows to get you ready for those pivotal years of your life Get some streaming picks. When the daughter of Simon Crawford, a successful barrister, is killed in what seems to be a hit and run accident, and the police are unable to find the culprit, Crawford swears that he will Hostile Witness the driver of the car, and take revenge. Later when his neighbour is killed in a staged burglary, the blame falls on Crawford, when a letter is found implicating the neighbour in the death of Crawford's daughter. Written by mike. Milland plays an excellent barrister, Simon Crawford, whose daughter is killed in a hit and run accident. Crawford vows that if he finds the person who did it, he will kill him. Later on, his neighbor is found dead, and Crawford is blamed. He decides to defend himself when his counsel, a young woman Sylvia Syms whom he's mentoring, quits in anger. This is a neat mystery that will really Hostile Witness you guessing up to the denouement, what people are calling here "a Perry Mason moment. His hair fell out after it was curled for Reap the Wild Wind in The rest of the acting is fine, particularly from Syms, but Milland has the largest role. Looking for some great streaming picks? Check out some of the IMDb editors' favorites movies and shows to round out your Watchlist. Visit our What to Watch page. Sign In. Keep track of everything you watch; tell your friends. Full Cast and Crew. Release Dates. Official Hostile Witness. Company Credits. Technical Specs. Plot Summary. Plot Keywords. Parents Guide. External Sites. User Reviews. User Hostile Witness. External Reviews. Metacritic Reviews. Photo Gallery. Trailers and Videos. Crazy Credits. Alternate Versions. Rate This. When the daughter of Simon Crawford, a successful barrister, is killed in what seems to be a hit and run accident, and the police are unable to find the culprit, Crawford Hostile Witness that he Director: Ray Milland as R. Writers: Jack Roffey screenplayJack Roffey play. Added to Watchlist. Great 60's Amazon Prime. Share this Rating Title: Hostile Witness 6. Use the HTML below. You must be a Hostile Witness user to use the IMDb rating plugin. Edit Cast Cast overview, first billed only: Ray Milland Simon Crawford - Q. Sylvia Syms Sheila Larkin Felix Aylmer Justice Osborne Raymond Huntley John Naylor Geoffrey Lumsden Charles Milburn Percy Marmont Hostile Witness Matthew Gregory Dulcie Bowman Lady Phyllis Gregory Ewan Roberts Hamish Gillespie Richard Hurndall Eley Ronald Leigh-Hunt Wimborne Sandra Tallent Usher Hostile Witness Rennie Edit Storyline When the daughter of Simon Crawford, a successful barrister, is killed in what seems to be a hit and run accident, and the police are unable to find the Hostile Witness, Crawford swears that he will find the driver of the car, and take revenge. Hostile Witness Drama. Edit Did You Know? Quotes Judge : The jury, in their wisdom, Hostile Witness found you not guilty. When you have recovered from your surprise, you may go. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Report this. Add the first question. Edit Details Country: UK. Language: English. Production Co: Caralan Productions Hostile Witness. Runtime: min. Sound Mix: Mono. Color: Color. Edit page. October Streaming Picks. Back to School Picks. Clear your history. Sheila Larkin. Justice Osborne. Lady Phyllis Gregory. Hamish Gillespie. Joanna Crawford as Sandra Fehr. Hostile Witness () - IMDb The court should exercise Hostile Witness control over the mode and order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence so as to:. The court may allow inquiry into additional matters as if on Hostile Witness examination. Ordinarily, the court should allow leading questions:. Subdivision a. Spelling out detailed rules to govern the mode and order of interrogating witnesses presenting evidence is neither desirable nor feasible. The ultimate responsibility for the effective working of the adversary system rests with the judge. The rule sets forth the objectives which he should seek to attain. Item 1 restates in broad terms the power and obligation of the judge as developed under Hostile Witness law principles. Item 2 is addressed to avoidance of needless consumption of time, a matter of daily concern in the disposition of cases. A companion piece is found in the Hostile Witness vested in the judge to exclude evidence as a waste of time in Rule b. Item 3 calls for a judgement under the particular circumstances Hostile Witness interrogation tactics entail harassment or undue embarrassment. Pertinent circumstances include the importance of the testimony, the nature of the inquiry, its Hostile Witness to credibility, waste of time, and confusion. In Alford v. United StatesU. Reference to the transcript of the prosecutor's cross-examination in Berger v. The inquiry into specific instances of conduct Hostile Witness a witness allowed under Rule Hostile Witness is, of course, subject to this rule. Subdivision b. The tradition in the federal courts and in numerous state courts has Hostile Witness to limit the scope of cross-examination to matters testified to on direct, plus matters bearing upon the credibility of the witness. Various reasons have been advanced to justify the rule of limited cross-examination. Resurrection Gold Mining Co. Fortune Gold Mining Co. But the concept of vouching is discredited, and Rule rejects it. This is a problem properly solved in terms of what is necessary for a proper development of the testimony rather than by a mechanistic formula similar to the vouching concept. See discussion under subdivision c. Finch v. WeinerConn. While this latter reason has merit, the matter is essentially one of the order of presentation and not one in which involvement at the appellate level is likely to prove fruitful. See for example, Moyer v. Aetna Life Ins. New York Central R. JohnsonF. Capitol Indemnity Ins. In evaluating these considerations, Hostile Witness says:. There is Hostile Witness factor, however, which seems to swing the balance overwhelmingly in favor of the wide-open rule. This is Hostile Witness consideration of economy of time and energy. Obviously, the wide-open rule presents little or no opportunity for dispute in its application. These controversies are Hostile Witness reventilated on appeal, and reversals for error in their determination are frequent. Observance of these vague and ambiguous restrictions is a Hostile Witness of constant and hampering concern to the cross-examiner. If these efforts, delays and misprisions were the necessary incidents to the guarding of substantive rights or the fundamentals of fair trial, they might be worth the cost. As the price of the choice of an obviously debatable regulation of the Hostile Witness of evidence, the sacrifice seems misguided. Some of the instances in which Supreme Courts have ordered new trials for the mere transgression of this rule about the order of evidence Hostile Witness been astounding. The provision of the second sentence, that the judge Hostile Witness in the interests of Hostile Witness limit inquiry into new matters on cross- examination, is designed for those situations in which the result otherwise would be confusion, complication, or protraction of the case, not as a matter of rule but as demonstrable in the actual development of the particular case. The rule does not purport to determine the extent to which an accused who elects to testify thereby waives his privilege Hostile Witness self-incrimination. The question is a constitutional one, rather than a mere matter of administering the trial. Under Simmons v. Rule dsupra. When he testifies on the merits, however, can he foreclose inquiry into an aspect or element of the crime by avoiding it Hostile Witness direct? The affirmative answer given in Tucker v. United States5 F. See also Brown v. The situation of an accused who desires to testify on some but not all counts of a multiple-count indictment Hostile Witness one to be approached, in the first instance at least, as a problem of severance under Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Cross v. United States v. BakerF. In all events, the extent of the waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination ought not to be determined as a by-product of a rule on scope of cross-examination. Subdivision c. The rule continues the traditional view that the suggestive powers of the leading question are as a general proposition undesirable. Within this Hostile Witness, however, numerous exceptions have achieved recognition: The witness who is hostile, unwilling, or Hostile Witness the child witness or the adult with communication problems; the witness whose recollection is exhausted; and undisputed preliminary matters. An almost total unwillingness to reverse for infractions has been manifested by appellate courts. The matter clearly falls within the area of control by the judge over the mode and order of interrogation and presentation and accordingly is phrased in words of suggestion rather than command. The rule also conforms to tradition in making the use of leading questions on cross-examination a matter of right. The final sentence deals with categories of witnesses automatically regarded and treated as hostile. See, for example, Maryland Casualty Co. KadorF. Fidelity and Casualty Co. A witness may be cross-examined on any matter relevant to any issue in the case, including credibility. In the interests of justice, the judge may limit cross-examination with respect to matters not testified to on direct examination. The Hostile Witness amended this provision to return to the rule which prevails in the federal courts and thirty-nine State jurisdictions.

Load more

  6

Copy Link