![]() If the jury is still in the courtroom, and the attorneys have had this conversation in a sidebar conversation, then the better practice is for the judge to tell the requesting attorney that he will gladly allow him to place the details of this conversation on the record, but do it at a more convenient time such as when the jury is discharged for lunch or when they are discharged at the end of the day. Some judges will allow the attorney to put this conversation on the record before bringing the jury back in. What that means is that now he will be able to dictate to the court reporter, also known as a stenographer, the details of the conversation that took place during the sidebar in the middle of testimony. If the judge has made a ruling during a sidebar and now permits certain testimony to come out or certain evidence to come in, the attorney who winds up being on the losing side of that particular issue now has an obligation to ask the judge to put that conversation on the record. That could be a problem if one side decides to appeal and one of the issues that is being appealed concerns the judge's decision to either allow or disallow certain evidence or testimony at that point during the trial. The downside to having a sidebar conversation is that whatever the judge decides based upon the conversation with the attorneys at the bench, the details of that conversation are not recorded anywhere. It can resolve an important point and allow you the ability to make your point. This conversation can last seconds or even a few minutes. One of the key advantages is that you have a brief discussion with the judge explaining why you believe your position is correct and the others side's position is wrong. ![]() There are advantages and disadvantages to having a sidebar conversation in the middle of trial. Either he will do it in front of the jury and ask the attorneys for legal argument, but more often than not, he'll either excuse the jury temporarily until the legal arguments are completed or he will have a sidebar conversation with the attorneys. When legal issues arise about a certain piece of evidence that the judge needs to address, he will often do it in one of two ways. When it comes to making rulings of law and deciding whether certain testimony is admissible or whether evidence is admissible, the judge is the sole arbiter of those decisions. The jury is the one to determine what the real facts are. ![]() The jury determines who is telling the truth. The jury's entire function is to determine who is more likely right than wrong. What's important to understand is that the jury plays no part in evaluating or deciding legal issues in the case. In some instances, an attorney will use this strategy intentionally to disrupt his adversary's flow. The jury will certainly not appreciate because it disrupts the flow of testimony. It can get very annoying if this is abused. I have been involved in trials where a defense attorney made repeated requests to have sidebar conversations.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |