@ninozara Said 
That raises a very good point. I understand protecting the children, and trying to make the trial on their level, but it doesn't say all that much for adult trials.
BUT, the defence lawyer cannot just sit back, if they 'believe' their client is innocent. It is their job to do everything in their power, legally, to to achieve a not guilty verdict for their client.
I think this is why focus is on physical evidence and forensics more now, that can't be 'tripped up' by a forceful questioning.
If the victim had been an adult, but with diminished mental capacity, would the same rules been in place?
Good question..but I think in that situation, you must take facts and definitive evidence first, the the testimony/cross-examination/witnessing would have to be an individually based thing, solely based on the accused and his/her ability to comprehend, learn, and use judgment, morals, ethics, and conscience.
This makes me glad I;m not in law! These are things I would not want to have to consider, knowing the fate of someone or several someones rests on my ability to judge their abilities! That is a lot of responsibility...I wish more lawyers/judges/jurors took that to heart.
May 24, 2010 @ 13:34:07
