when (at what sequential time) is a statement a valid rebuttle that judge must consider

[sallybaxter]

ID
Hard to put this into words but I'll try.

If Plaintiff goes first and Defendant goes second...then Plaintiff has only 1 chance to rebute Defendant testimony?

As well, if Plaintiff already testified to something. Then Defendant denied and gave different account. Then Plaintiff did not refute Defendant version.
Why wouldnt the Plaintiff first testimony BE the rebuttle since it is already on record?

 

[Taxing Matters]

Here is the way it works in a regular court in a nutshell. The plaintiff goes first, putting up his/her witnesses and producing the evidence he/she wishes to be considered. The plaintiff puts up his/her first witness and once the plaintiff has asked that witness all that he or she wants to ask, the defendant then gets to cross-examine the witness to poke holes in the testimony or challenge it. Then the plaintiff puts up his/her next witness, the process repeats itself until all the plaintiff's witnesses have been called. Then it is the defendant's turn and he/she calls his/her first witness, and once done the plaintiff then gets to cross-examine the witness. Again, this process then repeats for each of the defendant's witnesses. At the end of that, each side makes an argument to the judge or jury about how they think the judge or jury should resolve the case.

Small claims is a bit different. The rules are more informal and streamlined. It is up to the judge exactly how things will go to ensure that each side has their testimony and evidence considered. As a lot of this depends on local practices and the particular judge, there is no way to tell you exactly how it will go. It also matters what the case is about and if either side has witnesses other than themselves. But since court proceedings are open to the public you might want to sit in on small claims court one afternoon and get a feel for how they typically go. That will help you know what to expect when you have a case to try in small claims court.

 

[adjusterjack]

Maybe this

ID
If Plaintiff goes first and Defendant goes second...then Plaintiff has only 1 chance to rebute Defendant testimony? As well, if Plaintiff already testified to something. Then Defendant denied and gave different account. Then Plaintiff did not refute Defendant version. Why wouldnt the Plaintiff first testimony BE the rebuttle since it is already on record?

Maybe some details about your case would get you some additional comments.

 

[sallybaxter]

Case was small claims getting ready for DeNovo and predicting possibe Appellant review:
Plaintiff already testified to something. Then Defendant denied and gave different account. Plaintiff did not then refute Defendant version.
But wouldn't the Plaintiff first testimony BE the rebuttle since it is already on record? (In terms of how an Appellant review might consider )

 

[Zigner]

I am quoting what you were already told above (by an attorney, no less):

Small claims is a bit different. The rules are more informal and streamlined. It is up to the judge exactly how things will go to ensure that each side has their testimony and evidence considered. As a lot of this depends on local practices and the particular judge, there is no way to tell you exactly how it will go. It also matters what the case is about and if either side has witnesses other than themselves.

P & D each gave their version of the matter - that's all that's needed (in that regard). Now the judge/commissioner gets to make his/her decision.

 

[sallybaxter]

Yes but how much deference does Appellant review give that judge if judge made statement "I have the unrebutted testimony" as causal to or influential to her disposition.

 

[Zigner]

No "Appellant review" is given. If an appeal is filed, the appeal hearing is de novo. That means that it's a new hearing in front of a different judge...in essence, it's as if the first hearing never happened.

http://www.the3rdjudicialdistrict.com/Small_Claim_De_Appeal.htm

 

[adjusterjack]

Yes but how much deference does Appellant review give that judge if judge made statement "I have the unrebutted testimony" as causal to or influential to her disposition.

A trial de-novo is a do-over. The new judge won't know about anything that happened or was said in the first trial. If you made a mistake the first time around by not addressing the defendant's testimony you get to correct that mistake in the new trial.

But wouldn't the Plaintiff first testimony BE the rebuttle since it is already on record?

No.

I'll give you a simple example. You get up and say the Defendant owes you $100. That's all you do. No paperwork, no nothing. Just get up, say it, and sit down. Now the Defendant gets up and says he doesn't owe you $100. That's all he does and sits down. You say nothing about it. The judge is faced with two conflicting statements. He rules in favor of the Defendant because you have not provided any evidence that he owes you the money you have only said he owes you the money and he says he doesn't. That you said it first doesn't give your testimony any more weight than what the Defendant said. It's your lack of evidence that did you in.

Tell us what happened in your first trial and you might get helpful comments. Be specific, no generalities.

 

[sallybaxter]

No "Appellant review" is given. If an appeal is filed, the appeal hearing is de novo. That means that it's a new hearing in front of a different judge...in essence, it's as if the first hearing never happened.

http://www.the3rdjudicialdistrict.com/Small_Claim_De_Appeal.htm

Thanks yes I understand it is de novo. When I say appellant review I mean at the 3rd stage Supreme court review. So assume I loose at 1 and 2. I was wondering if it "could be" a strategy (not a good one or normal one just that it theoretically could be one) to First bring 1 facts/issues into 2 by introducing them as exhibits. Now, in theory, 1 would be in 2 and therefore both 1 and 2 could be considered in 3.

 

[Zigner]

Thanks yes I understand it is de novo. When I say appellant review I mean at the 3rd stage Supreme court review. So assume I loose at 1 and 2. I was wondering if it "could be" a strategy (not a good one or normal one just that it theoretically could be one) to First bring 1 facts/issues into 2 by introducing them as exhibits. Now, in theory, 1 would be in 2 and therefore both 1 and 2 could be considered in 3.

No, AGAIN, it is a de novo hearing. NOTHING that happened in the first hearing is brought forward.
If you lose the de novo hearing, then you can pursue further appeals...but you're going to need an attorney for that - and it will no longer be a small claims matter.

 

[LdiJ]

Thanks yes I understand it is de novo. When I say appellant review I mean at the 3rd stage Supreme court review. So assume I loose at 1 and 2. I was wondering if it "could be" a strategy (not a good one or normal one just that it theoretically could be one) to First bring 1 facts/issues into 2 by introducing them as exhibits. Now, in theory, 1 would be in 2 and therefore both 1 and 2 could be considered in 3.

Sally, if you continue to be vague, instead of discussing specifics, you are only going to get general answers. You seem to want more than general answers.

 

[sallybaxter]

Sally, if you continue to be vague, instead of discussing specifics, you are only going to get general answers. You seem to want more than general answers.

Sorry not trying to be vague but there really are not many specifics...other than just kind of a procedural question in the ether at this point. My understanding is in ID if you file a small claims case you get 3 total chances. 1 small claims. 2. Do-Over 3. Appeal to Supreme Court. And my understanding is that on Supreme Court level only lower court observance of rules is considered. And only #2 observance of rules (unless #1 is introduced in #2). So the questions pertaining to that understand are general. I did point out I did not agree with one judge action in #1 which is one reason why I am thinking about the way it all might play out. Meaning if I loose on merits of case and can only win appeal on procedure then how can/could I make that work to my advantage.

 

[LdiJ]

Sorry not trying to be vague but there really are not many specifics...other than just kind of a procedural question in the ether at this point. My understanding is in ID if you file a small claims case you get 3 total chances. 1 small claims. 2. Do-Over 3. Appeal to Supreme Court. And my understanding is that on Supreme Court level only lower court observance of rules is considered. And only #2 observance of rules (unless #1 is introduced in #2). So the questions pertaining to that understand are general. I did point out I did not agree with one judge action in #1 which is one reason why I am thinking about the way it all might play out. Meaning if I loose on merits of case and can only win appeal on procedure then how can/could I make that work to my advantage.

I am going to tell you right now, go consult an attorney. You do not want to give the people who a volunteering here, for free, enough information to want to help you.

There are plenty of specifics, you just don't want to give them.

 

[sallybaxter]

It is a general question. What specifics could possibly influence an opinion?? Either I failed to state it right or you failed to read it right...oh well right?

 

[Shadowbunny]

It is a general question. What specifics could possibly influence an opinion?? Either I failed to state it right or you failed to read it right...oh well right?

It's the way you're posing your questions that's causing the problem.