I'd like to call Dr. Henry Jekyll to the witness stand.

January 10, 2007 5:49 PM

When representing yourself in court, how do you call yourself as a witness?

When a person defends themself in court, can they call themself as a witness? How is the "questioning" conducted? If it makes a difference, let's assume criminal court.

posted by Doofus Magoo to Law & Government (10 answers total)

Best answer: Yes, a pro se defendant can take the stand. Generally they can testify in the narrative, create a list of questions and tell the court that they intend to ask themselves the questions and then answer them, and in some cases the judge asks the questions. The State Justice Institute has an interesting report on some of the issues involved titled "Summit on the Future of Self-Represented Litigation."
posted by RichardP at 6:09 PM on January 10, 2007

I've heard some really strenuous arguments that you should never defend yourself, even if you are a member of the bar in your jusrisdiction. If not, even worse idea.

Prudent practice generally dictates that, except in relatively minor matters, individuals should not engage in representing themselves. While pro se practice is of ancient origin, so too is the old saw: "Persons who represent themselves have fools for clients."

But that wasn't the question, which I think was adequately answered by RichardP.
posted by ctmf at 6:30 PM on January 10, 2007 [1 favorite]

What I've seen is the person often has something written out and wants to read it. The court lets them, but then starts asking questions, and it turns into questions by the court. Alternatively, the judge often will ask the person to just tell the story in their own words, or stick to the main point or tell the story carefully from the start or some other instructions. The judge, being a former lawyer, cannot help asking questions to get to the relevant points of the matter, it looks like to me. And so it again often turns into questions by the court.

I'm of course not a lawyer, but have observed a few years of court.
posted by Listener at 6:33 PM on January 10, 2007

As a prosecutor who has conducted too many self-represented criminal cases, I can tell you what it is like in B.C., Canada. Pennsylvania is also a common law jurisdiction, but criminal courts often have very specific rules of evidence that vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so you'll want to check out PA law resources for definitive rules.

Once the prosecution case has been called, the judge asks the accused directly if they wish to testify, which they are fully entitled to do. If so, they are sworn (or affirm to tell the truth), and then tell the court what they wish to say on their own behalf. Often the judge will ask specific questions to clarify, or to get the person on track to relevant matters, but the real fun begins when the person is finished. That's when the prosecutor does the cross-examination, if necessary, and the meat of the matter is examined.

In other words, at least in B.C., the accused does not "ask" themselves any questions, they simply testify - but they do go to the witness stand and do so from there, until cross-examination is completed.
posted by birdsquared at 7:33 PM on January 10, 2007

In many cases where someone wants to represent himself, the issues are not that complex, nor are the stakes high. Very often there is no jury, and that will simplify things.

In that event, the party will simply be sworn and then tell the judge, in his own words, his side of the story. "This is what happened". Questions from the judge and from the other side will unfold as needed.

No stilted "asking questions of myself" will be needed.
posted by megatherium at 7:37 PM on January 10, 2007

You know what they say:

A man who represents himself has a Doofus for a client.
posted by sourwookie at 7:50 PM on January 10, 2007

Response by poster: Thanks for the responses, y'all. Just to clarify, I have no intention of ever defending myself; this was just something I was always curious about. Of course, the juvenile side of me had pictured the defendant asking a question, then running to the witness stand, sitting and answering the question. My question was prompted by a recent news piece I read related to the trial of the anti-abortion activist who killed the doctor in Buffalo a few years back, and who is apparently defending himself.
posted by Doofus Magoo at 3:05 AM on January 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

To piggyback, how is a move like that seen by the other side? I imagine it would at least ruffle the feathers of the opposing counsel if someone said, "I've had no legal training whatsoever, but my case is so solid, I'm going to handle this one myself."
posted by emelenjr at 3:34 AM on January 11, 2007

emelenjr: It would ruffle no feathers. It would probably be seen with a mixture of happiness and weariness. Happiness because we'd win the case. Weariness because we now see a lot of future arm wrestling with the other side as they don't know the procedures, and won't trust what we'd say about what they need to do.
posted by kingjoeshmoe at 7:05 AM on January 11, 2007

I think that standby counsel is a possibility, so you could represent yourself at trial, but have an appointed attorney service certain portions of the trial, while leaving the major decisions/actions to the accused.
posted by herc at 7:30 AM on January 11, 2007