The Court of Appeal, however, overturned this decision on the basis of its view that defence counsel had improperly
cross-examined police witnesses.
Not exact matches
Defence counsel was not required to
cross-examine either officer because on this first trial date the investigating officer indicated to the Crown and the defence that two other
police witnesses were at the scene around the time of the arrest and their evidence had not been disclosed.
Perhaps
police and society at large might want to thank the defence for making sure the real culprit is identified, subject of course to the Crown and trial Judge's opportunity to fully
cross-examine the
witness and, if necessary, conduct related investigations?
In more serious cases,
police officers may be called as
witnesses by the Crown and then
cross-examined by the defence.
In his career as a criminal defense lawyer, John Cheevers has interviewed thousands of
witnesses,
cross-examined countless
police officers, and has protected his clients from being wrongfully convicted.
After a three week trial during which Vancouver Criminal Defence Lawyer Emmet J. Duncan
cross-examined the child complainant, her mother, her sister and numerous
police witnesses, and during which he presented his Client's defence through multiple defence
witnesses, including the Client, the Judge found Client NOT GUILTY of ALL charges.
At trial, Vancouver Criminal Defence Lawyer Emmet J. Duncan
cross-examines three
police witnesses and one civilian then SUCCESSFULLY ARGUES that the ORIGINAL demand (at the roadside) was UNLAWFUL, making the subsequent collection of breath samples a breach of hte Client's rights.