We’ve all seen it on TV a thousand times where the prosecuting attorney will ask the witness, “And is the person you saw in this courtroom today?” The witness will then point to the only person at the defense table that isn’t a lawyer and say “That’s him. Right there.”
Does this actually happen IRL or is it just a TV trope? It feels about as useful as having a lineup of 1.
When I was a juror they asked witnesses if they recognized the defendant, I think it’s just to prevent any possible appeal based on “a witness didn’t actually indicate the defendant in front of them was the person they saw at 4:23 AM Sep 22 2021 with the bloody pickaxe” claim.
In court videos I’ve watched the prosecution will often ask the witness to identify the defendant as the person they encountered and describe or point to them. The prosecution then will typically verbally restate that the witness identified the defendant for the record.
Has there ever been a case where someone didn’t recognize the defendant or instead pointed to a guy in the second row; three seats over.
It happened in The Kentucky Fried Movie (NSFW due to rubber penis.)
“Let the record show that the witness has indicated the defendant, C. Montgomery Burns.”
As someone who sat through many criminal trials, this is what happens and it’s common. But not those dramatic moments when a witness jumps to their feet, points at the accused and decries, “That person right there! He’s the one who attacked me!” Never saw that happen.
I see the witness identify the defendant during many trials I see on CourtTV but I’m not sure if they actually point or just acknowledge the defendant at the table. I’m going to watch now to see if they point or not.
In one interesting instance, an Asian defendant was seated in the front row of the general audience, because the defense wanted to argue that the witnesses couldn’t tell Asian men apart.
That issue came up in one Law & order episode.
In that position, I’d like to use the opportunity wisely. “Yes, the weaselly looking oaf in the clown outfit”.
“Sir, that’s the judge.”
In my experience, the questionnaire usually ask the witness to identify the person by where they’re sitting and an article of clothing they’re wearing.
So the witness might say, “he’s sitting over at that table, wearing a blue jacket.“
As defense counsel, I was taught not to look over at your client when the witness is asked to identify them. Instead, you should look at the witness. They might point ay you instead of the Client (that happened in a trial I was at once. It didn’t help though. The victim hadn’t seen the defendant - a pedophile - in about 20 years)
Based on my experience as a juror in exactly one trial – yes. Both the current victim (plaintiff?) and victims from prior convictions pointed at the accused and identified him as their attacker.
The prior victims weren’t asked to ID him, but broke down during their testimony regarding the prior evil acts he’d committed, and pointed at him as they kinda lost control in the courtroom. It was a disturbing experience and I’m glad I’m out of the jury pool for a few years now.
“I’m not saying another word without my laywer present.”
“…You’re the lawyer!”
“So where’s my present?”
Are these all Lionel Hutz quotes? 
Better a lawyer present than a lawyer dog…
The lawyer dawg thing was basically the court clarifying to say the person must explicitly say he wants a lawyer. Any confusion, ambiguity or misinterpretation cannot later be used to get out of what they said afterward. Silly, but an important detail. I vaguely recall a similar bit where someone said “do i need a lawyer?” and the response was “I don’t know, do you?” That was also not sufficiently a request for a lawyer.
I remember reading many years ago about a trial where the defendant had his cousin sit in for him at the defendant’s chair; when asked to identify the offender, the witness identified the person in the chair. After the guilty verdict, the defense asked for the verdict to vacated. The judge instead said no, the person sitting in the chair had been identified as the offender and convicted and so off he went to jail. This was 2 or 3 paragraphs in the newspaper about somewhere in the USA, back in the 70’s or 80’s. I assume the case went up to appeal, and I can’t imagine the bar association being happy with that trick either,
I’ve heard of a few cases where the person asked for an attorney but because of their flowerly language they legally did not ask for one. For example “Maybe I should talk to a lawyer.”
Everyone should be taught the following script
Am I free to go? Cops rarely answer yes or no so lather rinse repeat. If they say yes, leave immediately.
“I am invoking my right to remain silent and demand a lawyer.” I’m sure that people will say you don’t get an attorney until custodial interrogation but I don’t care. I am not about to distinguish whether the cop is questioning me, interrogating me, just asking questions, whatever. You talk to me copper for any reason and my reply is, “I am invoking my right to remain silent and demand a lawyer.” and leave it to the judge to decide when I’m entitled to the attorney.
Then STFU.