Click here to obtain a Word version of this document for adaptation
As you are aware, throughout this trial NOA has elected to conduct his/her own defence. While the law allows him/her to do this, it places some limits on what s/he may do. In particular, it does not permit him/her to personally cross-examine certain witnesses, including the next witness.
This does not mean this witness may not be cross-examined. It simply means that if NOA wishes to cross-examine this witnesses, the cross-examination must be conducted by defence counsel chosen by the accused or provided by the court.
If the accused has obtained or been provided with defence counsel, add the following shaded section:
In this case, [name of defence counsel] will be conducting NOW’s cross-examination on NOA’s behalf. This is routine practice in cases such as this.
As a matter of law, you must not draw any inference adverse to the accused from the fact that NOA is not conducting the cross-examination personally, and you must not give NOW’s evidence any greater or lesser weight. You must treat his/her evidence in exactly the same way that you treat the evidence of any other witness in these proceedings.
If the accused has not obtained or been provided with defence counsel, add the following shaded section:
In this case, NOA has elected not to have NOW cross-examined by defence counsel, so you will only be hearing his/her evidence-in-chief.
Last updated: 28 February 2008