Legal Question

Belly

Belly

Belly

Associate
Joined
25 Jun 2006
Posts
1,363
Location
Somewhere East of Eden
I watched A Fish Called Wanda a couple of days ago and nearly died laughing.

Jamie Lee Curtis (JLC) approached John Cleese (barrister) to try to discover some information which Cleese's client had.

Cleese was acting as barrister for the accused, when JLC mentioned the accused's and her own name Cleese said that JLC was a witness for the defence and as such he was NOT allowed to speak with her.

I know it's fiction but it seems very strange to me that if I were a witness for the defence and the defence had a barrister that I would NOT be allowed to speak with the barrister. I'd have thought that he would have been all over me like a rash trying to glean as much information as possible for his client before the case went to trial.

Any views please
 
why would they be allowed to intimidate a witness.

they know what the evidence is before it goes to court anyway, it's not like it's a secret?
 
I don't know. But back in the day I would indeed have been all over JLC like a rash. Hope that helps.

Dammit, just realised we're now in 2021 and I'm going to have to cancel myself for that comment :(
 
arknor said:
why would they be allowed to intimidate a witness.
Click to expand...

I can't see how a barrister for the defence could intimidate a witness for the defence. Certainly I could understand that the Crown Barister would be bared from speaking to a defence witness but NOT the other way around.
 
Belly said:
I can't see how a barrister for the defence could intimidate a witness for the defence. Certainly I could understand that the Crown Barister would be bared from speaking to a defence witness but NOT the other way around.
Click to expand...
you could still coach them or try to implant a different series of events
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom