Talk:Hostile witness

Is this US-centric?
Is the notion of Hostile witness limited to US law? If not this article needs expansion so it's not US-Centric.Giovanni33 19:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Any update to this question? If not I may modify the text to reflect this legal principle broader application.Giovanni33 16:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is this profound U.S.-POV being tolerated in many articles (at least those related to legal matters)? What about Neutral_point_of_view? --89.142.227.110 (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've tagged the article with these concerns. The lack of inline citations and the single US citation provides evidence for both tags. twilsonb (talk) 06:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. There isn't a section regarding hostile witnesses in the US. Firestar464 (talk) 02:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hostile Witness
All common law jurisdictions have some form of Hostile Witness provision. The common law has been supplemented in most jurisdictions, including in the United States, by Evidence Acts and Rules of Procedure which set out the rules for having a witness declared to be hostile. It is not common, nor is it easy to do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Susananderson (talk • contribs) 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Procedure
If a party call's a hostile witness, what does the party have to do so that the judge establish the witness as hostile? can the other party object to that? Can someone expand this article, please.--190.21.236.73 (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitions
The utility of this stub is limited by lack of definitions. It needs to be clarified that the "opposing party" is a function of one's POV. Is the "direct examiner" the prosecuting attorney, or can it refer to either attorney? Is there a distinction between that person and the "examiner"? Both are referred to in the stub.--89.6.10.174 (talk) 07:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it's quite an art getting the evidence in, and understanding the way the testimony is evinced and handled in old cases from English History.  It would certainly help the main article to put more links into it.   Fortunately, some very old cases from the 1600s and 1700s are so well documented with attorney-generals speaking very freely with the defendants that you can learn a lot about courtroom procedure just by reading the transcripts.


 * For instance, in the prosecution of Lord George Gordon in the summer of 1781, the Attorney-General (Erskine?) found it important to note how a witness was "sweating" on the witness stand, and his "countenance bespoke desperation, not recollection[.]"   He actually said something like that to the judge and the jury??   The trial alternated between the taking of statements or declarations, and impeachments of witnesses, and conclusions based on observations.    This sort of thing went back and forth, with the Attorney-General drawing conclusions, and final statements.    This was a case that had the equivalent of two court reporters taking notes.   One of them Lord George Gordon's own son.    There could have been sixty thousand witnesses,  more than could possibly be brought into the courtroom at once!   This was from a day and age where testimony wasn't even recorded.    It's not just a case about taxes - - not just Lords and Noblemen - -  it's also about Protestants and Catholics.    See "Treason,  Famous English Treason Trials," by Alan Wharam (Copyright 1995).    There's pretty much nothing more hostile than having the Attorney-General accuse some lord or lady of treason,  and making comments that are conclusory in nature, outrageous, and otherwise open to interpretation and a difference of opinion.


 * The main page of this article would be improved with more references to early common law cases from the UK.  216.99.201.40 (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

No info on hostile witnesses in the US
There isn't a section providing info on hostile witnesses in the US. Firestar464 (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)