In fairness to those following this blogsite – this is what happened :
1) The request for subpoena to summon the House Speaker and other congressmen was denied since the court already had a previous ruling on a similar matter.
2) The request for subpoena to summon the immediate members of the family of the Chief Justice was denied since they cannot be compelled to testify against each other in so far as this case is concerned.
3) The Senate Court and the Defense Panel were expecting that the Prosecution Panel was prepared to present evidence on Article I but instead, it was ready for Article II.
4) The Defense Panel was prepared for Article I and thus opposed the presentation of evidence on Article II.
5) The Senate Court ordered that the Prosecution must provide a revised order of the presentation of its evidence.
6) The Prosecution Panel has no witnesses insisting that the documents are certified, being computer generated and they are asking that the same be admitted.
7) The Senate Court in effect denied such request considering that the documents must be authenticated, among others.
8) The Prosecution Panel asked for a postponement.
9) The session was adjourned.
Analysis:
The prosecution panel would have lost its right to present evidence in full on Article I had the Senate Court denied its request for postponement. The documents when offered may have questions on its authenticity and the admissibility thereof would be at issue.
In a court proceeding, which may also be true in an impeachment court, the authenticity of a document may be stipulated upon, and in the event it is not admitted by the other party, even on its mere existence, the presenting party will have to summon a witness to authenticate the said document. Otherwise, there is no way by which the court can appreciate as an admissible evidence when the time comes to offer it as such.
This is really basic.
Further, in any proceeding, the element of surprise is not really allowed. In a pre-trial or preliminary hearing, the parties agree on the documents to be presented, the witnesses to be summoned, and even the order of presentation of evidence, testimonial or documentary. Through this manner, parties are able to prepare and prevent or avoid any unnecessary delay in the proceedings. Surprises are not welcome except when it is part of the testimony of a witness or part of the object evidence or documentary evidence.
As always, lawyers are reminded to be prepared when they come to court particularly on those matters which have been disclosed prior to actual trial.
The prosecution panel should have prepared for Article I. The defense panel should have been prepared for Article II. Both parties should be prepared for all the Articles. Certainly, the Senate Court is always prepared to hear the presentation of evidence.
Funny, but the issue of public opinion was raised. Hello?!
