PROTOCOL AND RUNNING ORDER

A. PRE-TRIAL
i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii. viii. ix. x. xi. xii. xiii. xiv. xv. xvi. xvii. Judge says all may be seated. Before we begin are there any pre-trial matters for the state/plaintiff One attorney stands and says yes your honour, we would like to make appearances for the record Introduce yourself and say to my right is Simon Hunter *Simon stands and smiles+ then same attorney says at the far end is Alison Robinson *same thing+ Stop then wait for the judge to say is there any further pre-trial matters Ask for preference for objections - would you prefer we object then state the rule number only or also state the basis for the objection/ your honour wed ask your preference for objections Permission to move freely about the well At this time the state would ask to approach the bench with 4 exhibits to be premarked Judge will ask for any objections from defence, then give permission (if its the broadcast and autopsy then state that all objns to its admissibility have been waived) In video its given to the court clerk not the judge Stand and wait for judges go ahead At this time the state/plaintiff would like to enter what has been previously marked as states exhibit 1 into evidence Judge may ask what it is/you could say what it is all objections to its admissibility have been waived Anything further from the plaintiff - No your honour Judge then moves to the defence *same kind of stuff with qns already answered like movement left out] Pursuant to rule 6.15 we ask that all witnesses be constructively be excluded from this trial other than the defendant and the official party for the state - sequestered. With that the defence is ready to proceed

ORDER:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Appearances Objections Movement Premark Move into evidence [Constructively sequester] Defence asked for this at the end of pre-trial

This constructively remove/sequester yite basically means that witnesses cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses - excluding the party of the case - here Drew Walton, or the designated representative - here Regan Thomas OR Kit Berkshire. What I read from it and have seen from the video is that no witness is actually thrown out of court after their evidence. Its merely to sound posh and replicate a real trial.

B. REST OF TRIAL
i. General rule of thumb before starting an initial direct or cross or speech May I proceed your Honour - [wait] - you may. Then begin. This doesnt seem to be applied to redirect or recross ii. When objecting a. Stand b. Say objection c. State grounds i.e. vague/badgering witness d. OR state number and title of rule if applicable e. IF APPLICABLE then go on and say your honour may I be heard f. Launch into whatever formula there is for the particular objection Sometimes you wont have to give grounds if quite obvious or laying the case for an attorney argument. Judge will go between attorneys saying What is your response? If he doesnt or you have something pressing to argue then pipe-up Your Honour may I be heard? And take it from there until you run out of things to say or judge makes decision

iii.

After an objection is overruled or sustained Both counsel seem to nearly always say: Yes your honour And some then repeat the question if the objection has been overruled - but keep it brief - quote them if you must

iv.

Do not object to the witness answer it is improper There are other mechanisms for dealing with a non-responsive/improper opinion answer

v.

When calling a witness Is the prosecution ready with their 1 witness? Yes your honour, the prosecution calls Hunter Bassimousa to the stand
st

vi.

When resting a witness Thank you Miss Bassimousa, no further questions for now your Honour

vii.

When entering evidence Follow the sheet Justin sent. Lay appropriate foundation. Permission to approach the witness with what has already been pre-marked as defence exhibit A? [WALK TO OPPOSING COUNCIL] Let the record show that I am showing opposing counsel the exhibit. Then go over and hand the exhibit to the witness saying i. Do you recognise this document? ii. What do you recognise it as? iii. Is it a fair and accurate copy of the ...? iv. Is it in the same or largely same condition as when you last saw it? After this then move the exhibit into evidence At this time the defence offer Defence exhibit A into evidence There will be objections so be prepared (unless if its for the autopsy/broadcast which you can enter into evidence in pretrial because all objections to its admissibility have been waived.)

viii.

Recross/Redirect After a direct/cross the judge will ask the court simply Recross? To which youd reply obvs yes/no less formality perhaps only a couple of questions your Honour If he doesnt then just say permission to redirect your Honour If demonstrative is being used Dont object because captains will have agreed to its usage in the pretrial meeting instead say: No objection your honour however I do ask to be able to move to see the witness testimony

ix.

Formula to enter a witness as an expert i. ii. iii. iv. v. What is your occupation? Would you please tell the jury a bit about your educational background? Tell the court what your work as DI involves? You said you conducted an investigation into...what experience do you have in this field? [Have you ever given evidence before] if applicable

Your honour at this time the defence offers Prof X as an expert in the area of forensic science including the areas of entomology and chemistry. To which the judge will ask for objections (unlikely) then continue.

This is not an exhaustive list but merely a way to show how it could be done and will change on a witness to witness basis.

Formula to lay appropriate foundation for expert test evidence OBJN: Your honour pursuant to rule 702 before this witness offers any opinions about blood typing he must lay the sufficient foundation that he relied upon sufficient facts and data, reliable principles and methods and reliably applied those principles and methods to this case i. ii. iii. iv. Did you use a normal type of test? Is that test reasonably relied upon by other experts in the field? Did you draw your conclusions based on a sufficient facts and data? And what were those conclusions? Compared to: What test? What did that test determine?

i. ii.