The Trial of Howard Part I (The Delay)
Today's For Better or For Worse's joke was that there might be delay at the beginning of the strip and there is a delay by the end of the strip. The statement the lawyer makes about making sure that you are in town for the trial, makes me think that tomorrow's strip is not the actual trial but the examination for discovery, an Ontario law practice where the witnesses of the trial are examined by their opponent's party, which the websites espouse greatly as having reduced the number of cases actually going to trial by 80-90%. This idea is corroborated by Liz and Anthony being in their same clothes as they are when they are told the trial is being delayed. However, working against that idea is the camera and bolted chair mentioned by Anthony, which would seem out of place in that sort of venue, as near as I can tell from website searches about examination for discovery.
The parts that are missing in today's strip are the kinds of details which would alleviate this kind of confusion. Why did Elizabeth and Anthony come in to talk to the lawyer, to get information about a delay they could have been told over the phone? If the answer is that they were there anyway for the examination of discovery, then the lawyer could be telling them information while they were already present, and saved himself a phone call. But Lynn doesn't bother to tell us this--a minor offence. Not making the joke work is a bigger offence.
The way it could have been funnier is this: Liz and Anthony are talking to the lawyer who thanks them for coming in for their examination for discovery. He says that trial delays are not uncommon for various reasons. He predicts there will be a delay. He observes Liz and Anthony are using the "we" and "us" terms and says, "I predict you will have a long and happy life together, once this trial business is all done." Liz gets embarrassed. Then the lawyer gets a phone call. He says, "Just as I predicted, the trial has been delayed. I am pretty good with my predictions," as Elizabeth and Anthony give each other meaningful glances.
That's not funny either. Oh well. I better not write comic strips.
The parts that are missing in today's strip are the kinds of details which would alleviate this kind of confusion. Why did Elizabeth and Anthony come in to talk to the lawyer, to get information about a delay they could have been told over the phone? If the answer is that they were there anyway for the examination of discovery, then the lawyer could be telling them information while they were already present, and saved himself a phone call. But Lynn doesn't bother to tell us this--a minor offence. Not making the joke work is a bigger offence.
The way it could have been funnier is this: Liz and Anthony are talking to the lawyer who thanks them for coming in for their examination for discovery. He says that trial delays are not uncommon for various reasons. He predicts there will be a delay. He observes Liz and Anthony are using the "we" and "us" terms and says, "I predict you will have a long and happy life together, once this trial business is all done." Liz gets embarrassed. Then the lawyer gets a phone call. He says, "Just as I predicted, the trial has been delayed. I am pretty good with my predictions," as Elizabeth and Anthony give each other meaningful glances.
That's not funny either. Oh well. I better not write comic strips.
posted by howard at 11:58 PM
9 Comments:
Heh, but Lynn's probably kicking herself for not thinking of doing it your way. :)
There are no examinations for discovery in criminal cases in Canada -- examinations for discovery are used in civil cases only. There's no reason why Liz and Anthony would have to give two videotaped statements a year apart. Either Lynn forgot about the letter or assumed that no one reads the letters.
Here's the usual procedure:
1. Witness gives oral statement to cop. Statement may be handwritten by cop, audiotaped, or videotaped. Statement disclosed to defence.
2. A year or more goes by. Witness forgets about case. Cop comes around and serves witness with a summons.
3. Witness is told to show up a couple of hours before trial scheduled to begin. Cop meets with witness and has witness refresh memory by reviewing statement (which usually means playing the tape for the witness).
4. Witness sits around all day wondering what is going on because witness excluded from courtroom until witness has been called to give evidence.
5. Witness never meets Crown attorney until witness is in the box and Crown attorney starts examination-in-chief of witness.
Howard must be a serial rapist, since his case is getting way too much prep time.
BTW, the Crown attorney would never meet with two witnesses at the same time for any reason, as it would look like collusion. Howard's defence lawyer could have fun with that little faux pas.
Thank you for the information, anonymous,
It looks like the monthly letters got part #1 correct, and the strip got part #2 correct. And then after that, the strip has messed up on parts #3 - 5. Do you think today's strip is the trial or the preliminary inquiry?
But wait, there's more:
The defence would have a copy of the handwritten statement or tape as part of the disclosure package. The only way the defence can examine a witness prior to trial is to request a preliminary inquiry, which is held in a courtroom before a provincial court judge. Preliminary inquiries aren't available in every case. It depends on the charge.
In any event, that's not what's going on here. The strip doesn't make sense. Surprised?
Thank you again for the information.
I think what we are seeing is Lynn Johnston's version of the trial, because I seriously doubt she knows anything about preliminary inquiries. From what I gather, cameras are banned in Ontario for either preliminary inquiries or for trials. Is that your understanding too? Or it just press cameras that are banned?
Even if Lynn knows what a preliminary inquiry is, virtually no one else would. This must be the trial.
If this were the prelim, I doubt the Crown would call both Liz and Anthony. The accused will be committed to trial if, in the opinion of the presiding judge, there is sufficient evidence to put the accused on trial for the offence charged or any other offence. That's a pretty low standard for the Crown to meet, so it's rare for an accused not to be committed for trial after a prelim. The Crown knows that the real reason the defence has elected to hold a prelim is that the defence wants a chance to size up the witnesses prior to trial. The Crown will call the minimum number of witnesses necessary to get a committal. The defence will usually keep the cross-examination to a minimum to save the good stuff for trial.
All cameras and recording devices are banned in this type of court proceeding.
There's routinely a publication ban on evidence given at a prelim until after the trial has been held.
anonymous,
Thanks again and again for all this great information. Now in the case of #1, is the statement called a deposition?
Post a Comment
<< Home