What are the authorities hiding in Missouri? Why NOT cross examine Wilson on the stand?

[woolldog]

70. Let me clarify then.

The prosecutor should have treated Wilson as an adverse witness from the moment he called Wilson to the stand. The prosecutor chose not to do that. If you have any question as to what that would have looked like, simply read Dorian Johnson's testimony...because that's exactly how the prosecutor handled Dorian Johnson. The disparity in how the Defendant and an eyewitness were treated in questioning shows how rigged this process was.

Note that it is perfectly acceptable to cross examine a witness that you call to the stand if they are adverse, which Wilson certainly was here.

See e.g., Illinois Terminal R. Co. v. Friedman, 210 F.2d 229, 232 (8th Cir. 1954) "This Court, in the case of London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Woelfle, supra, at pages 332- 334 of 83 F.2d, pointed out that the extent of permissible cross-examination of a material witness by the party who called him was dependent upon whether the cross-examination would be helpful in ascertaining the truth concerning the issues being tried, and not upon whether the cross-examination would or might discredit the witness or whether the cross-examiner was actually surprised by the witness' testimony. But we also pointed out that case that cross-examination of a witness by the party calling him was susceptible to abuse and that it was within the sound discretion of the trial court to permit the use and to prevent the abuse of such cross-examination."