too narrow restriction.
(c) Preliminary Questions, while the competency of a witness is a preliminary question of fact for the judge, questions of witness credibility are to be resolved by the trier of fact.
When impeaching ones own witness through a prior inconsistent statement, the proponent must bring the statement to the attention of the witness with sufficient circumstances to alert the witness to the particular occasion the prior statement was made and allow the witness an opportunity.(c) Objections A party may object to the courts calling or examining a witness, but the objection should be made outside the presence of the jury.A prefatory instruction by the judge to each juror about the need to avoid telling the judge anything about the substance of the jurys deliberations may be useful.283, 292 (1979) (trial judge was required to strike witnesss direct testimony when witness asserted privilege against self- incrimination during cross-examination and Commonwealth.813, 822823 (2000) (citing with approval Proposed Mass.In a civil case, a party or a partys authorized agent, such as a partys lawyer, is authorized to make statements of fact that may be deemed judicial admissions.A likely possibility existed that each witness would perjure himself or admit to perjury in his prior statement.Metropolitan Transit Auth., 345 Mass.The conduct may be in the form of an act, a statement, or a failure to act or make a statement.Jordan Marsh., 2 Mass.Good cause includes only reasons personal to a juror, that is, reasons unrelated to the issues of the case, the jurors views on the case, or his relationship with his fellow jurors "tions omitted).
212, 221222 (2016) (Where the extraneous matter was "not attached to any crucial issue" in the case, and there was substantial evidence of the defendants guilt, the trial judge properly refused to grant white and gold gift bags a new trial even though a juror had brought a gun magazine.
A judge is not permitted to waive an oath or affirmation.
464, 468469 (1998"ng Commonwealth.
740, 751 (2005"ng Commonwealth.
Neither the inability of a witness to remember specific details of events nor inconsistencies in the testimony render the witness incompetent to testify, so long as the witness demonstrates the general ability to observe, remember and recount.461, 488489 (2010) (after jury reported it was deadlocked, judge was warranted in removing deliberating juror based on a finding that a palpable conflict existed due to the arrest of the father of the jurors son, who was being prosecuted by the same district attorneys.The prior consistent statement may be admissible not only if made before the motive to fabricate arose, but also if made at a time when the motive to fabricate no longer exists.Use of Certain Prior Inconsistent Statements of Defendant in Criminal Case.Competency of judge as witness The presiding judge may not testify as a witness at the trial.The court discussed the revisions to Mass.However, a witness who has actually made a statement contradictory to trial testimony cannot escape impeachment simply by saying she does not remember making the statement.Subsequent to impeachment, questions concerning a witnesss fear in testifying are not per se improper on redirect examination.Subsection (a 2 A).Despite the natural reluctance of trial counsel to object to questions or comments coming from a judge, sometimes trial counsels duty to protect his clients rights requires him to object, preferably at the bench out of the jurys hearing.
Attorneys may initiate contact with jurors, but only after giving opposing counsel five business days notice.
Cross-Reference: Note Preference for Recording Certain Custodial Interrogations to Section 511(a 1 Privilege Against Self-Incrimination: Privilege of Defendant in Criminal Proceeding: Custodial Interrogation ; Section 521, Sign Language Interpreter Client Privilege ; Section 522, Interpreter-Client Privilege ; Standards and Procedures of the Office of Court.
Mode and order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence (a) Control by the Court The court should exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence so as to (1) make those procedures effective for determining the truth, (2) avoid.