Interdependant Court Case

1. This appeal was critical of both the crown counsel and the trial judge in this case because of the credibility during the trial became an issue. Even though some objection was taken, crown counsel did not warn the jury, and gave instruction to neutralize the impropriety. Also, the cross-examination of the appellant was not fair and improper. Therefore, the appellant brought up four grounds of appeal, and the first ground of appeal was granted under the remedy. The first ground was that the cross- examination was unfair and improper. Therefore, a new trial was ordered, and the issue of credibility risen.
2. It is crown counsel's job to convince the judge or jury that the appellant intended to commit a crime. Judge and jury must be kept fair and neutral, and only look at the bases of the fact. Therefore, it is crown counsel's job to prove an appellant is guilty with "beyond a reasonable doubt" to keep the trial fair and equal.
3. …show more content…
The effect of the kind of questioning cited in the case report proves the unfairness of the trial and could shift the burden of proof from the Crown to the accused. Because accuse was asked to answer questions that covered the credibility issues of the witnesses, which was unfair to the accuse. Questions that were asked to involve in truthfulness of other witnesses and whether they were lying or not, and it cannot be answered by the accuse. Jury may analyze that because an accused cannot answer those questions, the witness's testimony may be true. Also, the jury must decide according to the facts of the cases, and asking witnesses' credibility of a testimonial can bring