Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Mock Direct and Cross Examination Exercise: CLE 2 January Semester 2014

CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION II (January Semester 2014)
Mock Direct and Cross Examination Exercise:

Each student shall be on a team of two and will be assigned to the Prosecution or the Defendant.  Each student must conduct one direct examination of a teammate and one cross examination of an opposing witness.  Each student must also serve as a witness

Each team has a total of 24 MINUTES of net time to use for their directs and cross.

Each team should attempt to tender at least one exhibit for each of their witnesses during their witnesses’ direct examination.  You will need to create or bring your own exhibits.  They can include bottles, cans, permits, certificates, maps of the scene, etc.  You can be creative in coming up with the exhibits and do not have to be tied to the facts of the problem when coming up with an exhibit.  However, you cannot come up with an exhibit that is in conflict with the facts of the problem.  When tendering exhibits the teams should be mindful of the guidance provided in Kambaho Brian’s helpful Synopsis entitled Admissibility of Documentary Evidence and the legal authority cited therein.

OFFICER CAPTAIN SEWALI            State’s Witness #1
Officer Captain Sewali is a 35 year old police officer, and a 10 year veteran of the Ugandan Police Force.   Prior to March 2013 Sewali served as a foot patrol officer assigned to directing traffic.  Since March of 2013 Sewali has been serving as a vehicle patrol officer and has been provided with one of the fifteen new SUV’s that the UPF received thanks to a generous donation from the government of Norway.

Officer Sewali has not actually reached the rank of Captain.  Sewali used to be captain of a football team and the name just stuck.

Officer Sewali started a shift at 8:00 am on the morning of January 17, 2014 and was forced to work late that night because of cutbacks in the UPF's budget and because other officers that could have relieved him had malaria.  At 9:00 pm., Sewali was alone in her SUV patrolling the area near Seeta High School where there had been reports of burning tires. It was a clear, dry night and road conditions were excellent. There had been no rain all that day.

At approximately 9:40 pm. Sewali was driving eastbound along Jinja Road approaching its intersection with a newly constructed road called Kobs Crossing.  According to Officer Sewali the speed limit along this stretch of Jinja Road at that juncture is posted at 50 kph and Sewali was travelling at "about" 55 kph when she first noticed the white Toyota Prado.

When Sewali first saw it the Prado was travelling northbound on Kob’s Crossing towards its intersection with Jinja Road. There is neither a stop sign nor a traffic light at the intersection of JinJa Road and Kob’s Crossing.  The Prado came to a complete stop at the intersection, but then proceeded to make a right turn in front of Sewali’s SUV.  The Prado forced Sewali to brake suddenly.    The Prado continued along Jinja Road, with the police cruiser following it for about a kilometre.  While following the Prado, Officer Sewali noted the following:

1.    The Prado's speed was slow, travelling at approximately 25 kph;
2.    The driver's head moved constantly from left to right;
3.       The Prado weaved, somewhat, on two occasions, crossing one wheel over the
      centre line on each occasion;
4.   Suddenly, and for no apparent reason, the Prado swerved fully into the
      westbound lane (fortunately, there was no oncoming traffic).

Sewali had seen enough and decided to pull the Prado over.  Sewali activated the cruiser's flashing roof lights and signalled the Prado to pull over.  The Prado immediately pulled off to the side of the road.  Sewali pulled the cruiser up behind the Prado and promptly exited the cruiser and approached the accused, who was still sitting in the driver's side seat.  As the accused rolled the window down Sewali noticed a very strong smell of alcohol coming from the car.

Sewali asked the driver to produce a driver's licence.   Sewali was surprised to see that the driver’s legal name was Wallie Waragi.  As soon as Waragi spoke, Sewali was "was struck in the face" by the "smell of alcohol" on the driver's breath.  Waragi fumbled for, and eventually found, all of the required documents saying "Here they are officer, hope they're all in order".  Sewali asked whether Waragi had been drinking.  Waragi replied "yes officer, but I only had two or three beers at a house party".

When asked how long before the accused had consumed the beers, Waragi admitted to having one beer around 7:30 p.m and another between 8:00 and 8:30 p.m.  Next, Sewali asked Waragi is there was a reason the Prado had been going so slow and why it was weaving.  Waragi claimed to have been looking for the turn to a road leading to small village and claimed to be unfamiliar with the area.

Officer Sewali shone her flashlight into the car and saw a few empty beer cans on the passenger's side floor of the car.  Sewali asked Waragi to exit the Prado and accompany Sewali back to the police cruiser.  Sewali noticed Waragi walk slowly and with deliberate steps.  Sewali further noticed that Waragi's eyes were glassy and bloodshot.   Waragi was charged under Section 111 of the Traffic and Road Safety Act for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of drink to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of a motor vehicle.  All of Waragi's rights were fully complied with.

Waragi was taken to the police station, was booked and was then released pending trial. Unfortunately, the station's breathalyser machine was broken due to a power surge earlier that day and a test could not be administered to the accused.  Sewali does not recall Waragi ever requesting to have a breathalyser administered, but is it possible that Sewali could have forgot.  Officer Sewali "is quite sure" that Waragi would have "blown over 80, there is absolutely no question about it."

T. TOTALLER            State’s Witness #2
T. Totaller is a 68 year old Irish missionary/counsellor at Seeta High School.  T. Totaller happened to be out walking to a local trading centre on the late evening of January 17, 2014.  Totaller had left home around 9:00 pm, as was Totaller’s usual habit.

At approximately 9:40 pm that evening as Totaller was returning home, walking eastbound on the south side of Jinja Road, about 100 metres from the Seeta High School gate when Totaller observed "a couple of young punks" travelling slowly, and a little erratically, eastbound along Jinja Road in a white Prado.  Totaller believes Totaller saw the passenger drinking from a beer can.  However, Totaller cannot be sure.  All Totaller knows is that it looked a beer can.  Totaller will also admit that he rarely sees beer sold in cans in Uganda. 

Totaller will testify that a plastic bag containing some of the food Totaller bought at the trading centre had a hole in it and many of Totaller’s groceries had fallen out along the way.  When Totaller turned around to look for missing items along Totaller’s path Totaller noticed the Prado swerve "wildly" into the oncoming lane on Jinja Road.

At this point, Totaller noticed the flashing lights of the police SUV and observed the Prado pull over to the side of the road.  Totaller watched as the officer approached the Prado and then watched as the officer and the driver walked back to the police cruiser.  Totaller will swear that the accused was walking unsteadily and it looked to Totaller that the driver could only maintain balance by leaning against the Prado when walking to the Police cruiser.

Totaller admits to having first been drawn to the Prado by the blaring of "that blasted car radio.  Totaller told the police offer at the seen “you know, I am getting sick and tired of these drunk hooligans racing up and down Jinja Road, with their radios shrieking out that awful rap music, having little regard for anybody but themselves. They should all be put into jail".

Totaller, who usually always wears eye glasses, was not wearing them while taking the walk to the trading centre.  Totaller could not find them and Totaller really needed some milk and mangos for his breakfast the the next morning.

WALLIE WARAGI            Defence Witness #1
Wallie Waragi is a 55 kilogram 18 year old secondary school student who, on 17 January 2014, was looking forward to going to a party with his/her best friend, Rabadaba, to celebrate Rabadaba's eighteenth birthday. It had been a long day at work for Wallie, having worked a double shift (14 hours) at the Coke Bottling Plant, when, at approximately 7:15 pm. that evening, Wallie picked up Rabadaba, in Waragi's older sister's white Toyota Prado.

Waragi had only eaten once that day, at approximately 2:30 pm., having devoured a large box of chicken and chips. Waragi had had no time for breakfast, and had had no time for supper because Rabadaba picked Waragi up at 7:15 p.m. 

Rabadaba and Waragi arrived at the party at approximately 7:30 pm carrying bottles of Club beer and a Jerrycan of the “local brew”.  Each of them cracked open "a cold one" as soon as they stepped into the party.  The friends separated until approximately 9:25 pm. when Rabadaba approached Waragi and stated that it was time to leave and go to another party.  Waragi recalls having one or two additional beers between 8:00 and 8:30 pm.  Waragi is unable to recall whether Waragi consumed any of the local brew, "although it is possible".  On the other hand, Waragi does recall that Rabadaba had had a considerable amount of alcohol to drink throughout the evening and was "thoroughly enjoying the celebrations".

At approximately 9:30 pm. they left the party in Waragi' sister's car to go to the party in a village near Seeta High School.  Waragi was driving.  Although Waragi did not know the way to the second party, Rabadaba knew the route and gave Waragi directions.  Rabadaba turned the volume of the car radio upto its maximum setting, was changing stations frequently, and was drinking from a can of Red Bull.

Waragi will state that, after travelling several blocks, the Prado came to a full stop at the corner of Kob’s Crossing and Jinja Road at which point Rabadaba blurted out "turn right this is Jinja Road ... now, look for the turn off across from Seeta High School".  Waragi turned right, drove slowly looking intently from side to side at the street signs since Waragi had no idea where the turn off was. 

While looking around for Seeta High School, Waragi noticed some mangos rolling in front of the Prado and swerved into the oncoming lane to avoid hitting them.   Waragi remembers yelling “Mangos” as the fruit rolled into the path of his vehicle.  After successfully avoiding the fruit, Waragi immediately noticed a flashing light in the car's rear view mirror and pulled over to the side of the road.

As the police officer approached the driver's side door, Waragi rolled the window down and turned to face Captain Sewali.  Waragi was extremely nervous.   Waragi had never been stopped by the police before.  Waragi nervously fumbled around trying to locate the documents. When asked to respond to the reason for swerving suddenly into the oncoming lane, Waragi remembers telling Captain Sewali that Waragi swerved to avoid some mangos that were rolling on the road.  Waragi followed the officer back to the cruiser and was informed of Waragi’s rights.  Sewali charged Waragi  with "driving while under the influence". 

They drove to the station where Waragi was formally booked.  Waragi asked for a  breathalyser test, but one was never administered.   Sewali advised Waragi that the breathalyser was broken. 

RAMA RABADABA            Defence Witness #2
Rama Rabadaba is an OAC secondary school student who, on 17 January 2014, was looking forward to celebrating the first long weekend of the summer, the end of the school year and Rabadaba’s 18th birthday.  At approximately 7:15 pm. that evening, Rabadaba was picked up by Rabadaba’s best friend, Wallie Waragi, in Wallie's sister's white Toyota Prado.  Their plan was to attend a house party at 12 Kobs Crossing, together with the rest of the graduating class of OAC Secondary School.

The friends arrived at the party at approximately 7:30 p.m. ready to celebrate Rabadaba's reaching the age of majority.  Between them, they had purchased a twelve pack of Rabadaba's favourite beer, Club and they had acquired a Jerrycan of the “Local Brew” from Rabadaba’s uncle.  As they entered the house on Kob’s Crossing, they each cracked open a beer and started to party.  The music was loud, all of their friends were there and it took almost no time for them to feel "good".

At 9:30, Rabadaba recalled that a teammate on the swim team was also having a party in a village near Seeta High School (which is just down Jinja Road a ways from Kob’s Crossing).  Rabadaba wanted to attend before the evening ended, so Rabadaba sought out the Wallie and they left together in Wallie’s sister’s Prado.

Rabadaba thinks Wallie had at least one beer prior to leaving the Kobs Crossing party and cannot recall seeing Wallie consume any other alcohol.  Rabadaba admits to having "several" beers over the course of the two or so hours they were at the party and some of the local brew that Rabadaba drank through a long straw.  It is true that the Jerrycan was much lighter than when they arrived so there is no way that Rabadaba was the only one drinking the local brew.  Rabadaba does not know who else consumed the local brew.

When leaving the Kob’s Crossing party, Rabadaba grabbed a can of Red Bull for the road, put the remaining beer and the Jerrycan of local brew into the Prado's boot, and sat in the passenger seat.  Meanwhile, Wallie took the wheel and proceeded to drive.                 

The Prado's radio was set to the maximum volume and bass levels, the windows were closed and the friends set off for the village party.  Rabadaba recalls seeing "a few" empty beer cans in the front seat of the car, but the cans were on the passenger’s side of the Prado.  Rabadaba denies consuming any alcohol during the drive to the other party.  Rabadaba does not know when, or how, the beer cans found their way into the car.

Rabadaba recalls, that while chugging the last of the Red Bull, Wallie suddenly swerved into the oncoming lane on Jinja Road while yelling “Mzungu!” out the window.   Prior to this, Rabadaba did not notice anything unusual about Wallie's driving other than the fact that Wallie was confused because Wallie did not know the way to the party.  

Rabadaba is unaware of exact speed of the car at the time of the swerve, having been absorbed by the music playing on the radio.  Rabadaba believes that Waragi was driving both carefully and safely at that time. 

Rabadaba has never known Wallie to drive while drunk.  Rabadaba  has great confidence Wallie' driving abilities.  Rabadaba has ridden with Wallie as the driver at least five or six other times.  All of those times Wallie drove without incident other than the time Wallie glanced a boda guy, but it was the boda guy’s fault.

THE INDICTMENT

The STATE OF UGANDA AGAINST WALLIE WARAGI
Wallie Waragi stands charged:
That in Uganda, Mukono County, on or about the 17th day of January 2014 Wallie Waragi did unlawfully operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of drink or drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the motor vehicle.

Dated this 27th day of January 2014.
Director of Public Prosecutions

APPLICABLE LAW

111. Driving while under the influence of drink or drugs.
Every person who, while under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the motor vehicle, trailer or engineering plant, drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle, trailer or engineering plant on any road commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine of not less than five currency points and not exceeding sixty currency points or imprisonment of not less than six months and not exceeding two years or both.

To assist the students in their preparation of the case, reference may be had to the following judicial comments: (Please note, however, that these comments are provided ONLY as a guide to the preparation of the case, and SHOULD NOT be cited or referred to during the trial.)

1.                  "There appears to be no single test or observation of impairment of control of faculties, standing alone, which is sufficiently conclusive. There should be consideration of a combination of several tests and observations of such as general conduct, smell of the breath, character of the speech, manner of walking, turning sharply, sitting down and rising, picking up objects, reaction of the pupils of the eyes, character of the breathing.
"If a combination of several test and observations shows a marked departure from what is usually considered as the normal, it seems a reasonable conclusion that the driver is intoxicated with consequent impairment of control of faculties and therefore that his ability to drive is impaired.
"I do not think such a finding should be made on a slight variation from the normal."

2.                  "In determining whether or not a person's ability to drive was impaired by alcohol or a drug, consideration may be given to such factors as his ability to drive in a mechanical sense and also in the field of judgment, his appearance, his manner of speech, the smell of his breath, his manner of walking, the reaction of the pupils of his eyes and the results of all physical test including the breathalyser test. If a consideration of such factors leads the court to the conclusion that the condition of the accused was consistent with the conclusion that he was driving while his ability to drive was impaired by alcohol or a drug and inconsistent with any other rational explanation, then the court is justified in convicting him."


"It should be noted that it is not the driving of the accused that is to be judged, although that is a factor to be considered.                  

Even if nothing abnormal about his driving was observed, that is not conclusive as to his guilt or innocence. One's ability to drive may be impaired even though there is no evidence of bad driving and, conversely, one may drive badly without being impaired. The question for determination is not whether he drove badly, but rather was his ability to drive impaired or was it not."

CLE 2 January Semester 2014: Mooting and Briefing Problem


CLE 2 MOOTING and Briefing PROBLEM
Healthy Future and One Other v. the Attorney General

The following case was brought under Article 137 of the Uganda Constitution.

The lead Petitioner in the Case is “Healthy Future.”  Healthy Future is a Ugandan corporation and a registered Non Governmental Organisation.  Healthy Future is dedicated to the promotion of the health of unborn children.

The other petitioner is Akurut Acen as legal representative of Jangu Adam.  Adam is an 8 month-old fetus that Akurut Acen is carrying.  

Healthy Future has chosen not to include any born human petitioners in this case.  Some argue that Healthy Future is merely using this issue as a back door means of establishing the personhood of the unborn in Uganda. Healthy Future is largely funded by the American pro-life organization Focus on the Faith.  

Healthy Future filed a petition seeking the provision of folic acid to all women of childbearing age in Uganda.  Adequate folic acid intake during the preconception period (which is the time right before and just after a woman becomes pregnant) helps protect against a number of congenital malformations, including neural tube defects.  Neural tube defects are severe abnormalities of the central nervous system that develop in babies during the first few weeks of pregnancy resulting in malformations of the spine, skull, and brain; the most common neural tube defects are spina bifida and anencephaly.  The risk of neural tube defects is significantly reduced when supplemental folic acid is consumed in addition to a healthy diet before conception and during the first month after conception.   

Uganda’s Ministry of Health decided to adopt a programme for the provision of folic acid to pregnant mothers and women seeking to become pregnant in 2009.  However, every year since 2009 the budgetary allocation for folic acid has been dropped.  The only folic acid provided to pregnant mothers and women seeking to become pregnant since that time has been offered through donor funds or has been purchased by individuals.  The Ministry of Health said that it has had to make the decision to cut the folic acid programme each year due to a reduction in the funds it has received from the Central Government.  It reasons that it must cut costs associated with the purchase of medicines and medical equipment because it must use all allocated funds on staff and building maintenance in order to avoid staff layoffs and to ensure proper upkeep of existing facilities.  In addition, an estimated 30 billion funds are also used at an annual staff “team-building and health education” retreat held at Turtle Bay in Malindi, Kenya.

The Petitioners assert that all of the unborn in Uganda have the right to have their mothers provided with folic acid.  This is based on an alleged right to health.  They assert that the unborn have a heightened right to government health provision as they are not in the position to provide for themselves.

Healthy Future seeks a variety of forms of relief which include the requirement that folic acid supplements be added to all flour in Uganda, that folic acid tablets be provided to all women of childbearing age, that women of child bearing age be provided with a government sponsored supplement to defray the cost of folic acid tablets, that the Ministry of Health be forced to make other budget cuts that do not directly effect health to the same extent as cutting the folic acid programme that the Ministry of Health adopted in 2007, or any other form of relief that the court can order which would improve the availability and provision of folic acid to women of child bearing age.

The Constitutional Court heard the case.  The Constitutional Court struck down the petition.  In a one sentence holding, the Constitutional Court held that the petition was barred by the political question doctrine citing their recent decision in Centre for Health Human Rights and Development (CEHURD) and Three Others v. Attorney General, Constitutional Petition No. 16 of 2011, UGCC, available at http://www.ulii.org/ug/judgment/constitutional-court/2012/4.

Healthy Future filed a timely appeal with the Supreme Court of Uganda.  The Supreme Court has set the matter down for immediate oral argument along with the pending CEHURD case.   Counsel for Healthy Future will argue the case for the Petitioners and the Office of the Attorney General will argue the case for the Respondent  

The Supreme Court has asked the appellants and respondents to offer oral argument on the following issues:

1.  Are the petitioners proper parties to bring a petition under Article 137?

2.  Is there a right to health in Uganda that emanates from the Constitution?

3.  Is the right to health judicially enforceable?

4.  What is the legal status of the unborn under the Ugandan Constitution?

5.  Is there any means or mechanism under Ugandan law through which the constitutional rights of the unborn can be enforced by or on the behalf of the unborn?

6.  What remedies, if any, would the court be authorised to provide if the Court decided to grant some form of relief to the Appellant?


You will be given the choice of taking the side of the Appellant or the Respondent along with one partner.   Briefs will be due at the conclusion of the semester.  Oral arguments will be made at the end of March and in early April.  Teams will register for oral argument slots and for which side they will present on and brief.  There needs to be an even number of teams presenting on both sides.  You will receive further instructions about the specifications of the brief and the oral argument assignment in the near future.  These instructions will be posted at ucucle.blogspot.com

Guide to Admissibility of Documentary Evidence by Kambaho Brian Karogo


ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
The guiding Law on the admissibility of documentary evidence is the Evidence Act Cap 6 particularly Sections 60 – 100. Documentary evidence involves both exhibits and police statements.
Exhibits help get over the huddle of presenting the court with a mass of information orally. Exhibits should be used to emphasise key facts. Beware of over loading the record with exhibits that are not necessary or truly effective.
It is important that you lay a firm foundation for any exhibit using testimony before you attempt to introduce the exhibit. For example if the case is based on a contract, you should ask your client whether there was a written agreement, whether he signed it, whether he can identify it, whether he can identify his signature on that agreement. After identifying his signature, you can ask the witness to highlight the contents of the agreement while reading it on the stand. You may ask to tender the agreement as an exhibit.
Types of exhibits
1.     Real objects (guns, blood, drugs, machinery)
2.     Demonstrative exhibits (diagrams, models, maps)
3.     Writings (contracts, promissory notes, cheques and letters)
4.     Records (public and private)


How to get exhibits into evidence
It is the responsibility of every lawyer to ensure that the record is complete at the end or close of the evidence. The Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1, Order XIV requires that each document admitted must be marked with;
1.     The number and title of the suit
2.     The party producing the document
3.     The date on which it was produced, signed and initiated by an officer of the court.
Tendering of exhibits
Exhibits are very essential in proving some cases and if such exhibits are not properly handled, the entire case could be negatively affected. There is no clear procedure as to who should present the exhibits, when and how it should be presented.
WHO; this depends on the nature of the exhibit to be tendered. Ideally, the officer in whose custody the exhibit has been should be the one to tender it, this rule applies to those exhibits that were recovered from the scene of crime and taken to the police or somebody in authority and that person has been keeping the exhibit up to the time of trial. The other people who might have handled the exhibit at different stages should be called only to identify it but not to tender the exhibit.
For example, in cases of physical exhibits such as a panga in a homicide case, the witness who first found it at the scene should make a statement to that effect (this would include of thorough description of the item, where he found it, under what circumstances he found it). The person who then takes custody of the exhibit and the person who hands it over to the police for custody as an exhibit should all make statements to that effect. The very last officer (usually the storeman to the exhibit room) is the one that produces the exhibit in court. The other witness will merely identify the panga at trial.
In addition, where the defence consents, any of the witnesses may tender in the exhibit. It should be remembered that an article does not become an exhibit, until it has formally been proved and admitted in court as evidence. Uganda Breweries Limited vs. Uganda Railways Corporation Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2001.
Closely related, before a witness is called to tender an item as an exhibit, the prosecutor must lay a foundation by asking the witness to precisely describe the item before it is shown to him/her in court. When the description as given by the witness does not tally with the item which the prosecutor intends to tender, then the witness should not be allowed to identify it since his description may not be referring to that particular object.
It is the role of opposing counsel to object, to the display of a particular exhibit, to the witness before the witness describes the item and this mainly applies for physical exhibits.
In cases where the exhibit is a document, it should be tendered by the person that wrote it or, to whom it was sent or, who has been keeping it depending on the purpose for which it is required in evidence. Where a person, for example, who wrote the medical report, cannot be found and the case falls under Section 30(b) of the Evidence Act Cap 6, then anybody who knows the writer’s handwriting and signature can tender it.
WHEN; when an exhibit is to be identified by a number of witnesses, it should be tendered at the earliest possible opportunity to avoid recalling some witnesses to come and identify it.
HOW; the correct procedure is that, after the witness has described the item and it has been shown to him or her, the prosecutor should apply verbally to have it tendered by the witness. After the witness has tendered it, the court clerk should then receive and mark it.

Adducing Medical Report as an exhibit
The Doctor is called to the stand and takes oath to speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Lawyer: Please tell this honourable court your name
Witness: I am Dr. Milton Oketch
Lawyer: When did you become a doctor?
Witness: I became a doctor in 1990 after I graduated from Makerere Medical School with a degree in Medicine.
Lawyer: Did you get to practise medicine?
Witness: Yes I did and I have been doing so for the past 20years.
Lawyer: where do you practise your medicine?
Witness: I work at Mulago National Referral Hospital and I am the Chief Pathologist of the Hospital.
Lawyer: So, what does a pathologist do in his line of duty?
Witness: As pathologists, we treat bodies and open them up where necessary, so as to establish the cause of death, time of death and other findings.
Lawyer: Dr Oketch, do you know why you are in court today?
Witness: Yes, testify to the post mortem report I wrote after examining the deceased Peter Kakembo.
Lawyer: When did you examine the deceased?
Witness: It was on the 13th December 2012.
Lawyer: what were your findings after the examinations
Witness: I found that the deceased died as a result of 4 gun short wounds to his chest cavity cutting through his lungs
Lawyer: If I showed you the Post Mortem report, would you be able to identify it?
Witness: Yes I would.
Lawyer: How would you identify it?
Witness: I signed it myself at the bottom right corner of page 2.
Lawyer: My Lord I am marking this report as Prosecution Exhibit No 1 for identification purposes (PI.1)…[write on it PI 1 and give it to the Court Clerk who the passes it on to the opposite Counsel for identification]
Lawyer: My Lord, May the record show that Mr Mbona the defence counsel has been shown the post mortem report for identification purposes.
Judge: Does the defence have any objection?
Defence Counsel: We have no objection my Lord. (In case of an objection, Counsel would say….My Lord the witness has not clearly described the document and we object to its identification….Counsel may also object to the fact the Doctor is not the author of the Report)
Lawyer: My Lord I seek permission to approach the witness.
Judge: You may or permission granted.
Lawyer: (showing the accused the report) Dr Oketch, is this the report you were talking about that you made?
Witness: Yes it is the Report that I made.
Lawyer: My Lord, may it put on record that the Witness has identified the Postmortem Report as his own. We therefore tender it in as Prosecution Exhibit No. 1. (the opposing counsel may also raise an objection to the admissibility of the exhibit)
Judge: (scrutinizes the exhibit) the report has been accepted as evidence and entered as Prosecution Exhibit No. 1…P.E 1

LEGAL PREMISE
Detention of property seized.
Section 73 Magistrates Courts Act Cap 16 :-
(1) When any such thing is seized and brought before a court, it may be detained until the conclusion of the case or the investigation, reasonable care being taken for its preservation.
(2) If any appeal is made, or if any person is committed for trial, the court may order it to be further detained for the purpose of the appeal or the trial.
(3) If no appeal is made, or if no person is committed for trial, the court shall direct such thing to be restored to the person from whom it was taken, unless the court sees fit or is authorised or required by law to dispose of it otherwise.


Cases
UGANDA vs STEPHEN ONYABO [1979] HCB 39
Odoki Ag. J (as he then was) held; in every criminal prosecution, conviction should only be based on the actual evidence adduced and not on any other attractive or fanciful theories of reasoning since by doing so, there is great danger of being led astray by the type of mental gymnastics when drawing any inferences on reaching conclusion.
UGANDA vs MUSANA [1985] HCB 20
Police statements are not to be taken as evidence in court. Rely on the evidence adduced or the testimonies given in court.
KASULE vs UGANDA [1992-1993] HCB 93
Exhibits must always be put on the police file to be kept and preserved in the original state. The chain of evidence must never be broken.
ABDU NGOBI vs UGANDA S.C.Crim Appeal No.10 of 1991
It is not correct to admit evidence by consent simply because witnesses are dead or absent. The Judge must satisfy him/herself that the statement is admissible and if necessary take evidence of the facts needed to prove admissibility.
LAPSON APIRE vs UGANDA H.C.Crim Revision No. 77 of 1977(unreported)
Re-examination is not the proper time for putting in exhibits, but it may be done with the leave of court and with opportunity given to the accused to cross examine the witness on the exhibit.


General tips
1.     Exhibits are only admissible through the proper procedure and person.
2.     The party seeking to rely on the exhibit must lay a proper foundation for producing them in evidence.
3.     The witness should have full knowledge and acquaintance of the exhibit.
4.     The witness should be legally competent to introduce them in court.
5.     The chain of exhibit must be complete throughout its handling; from the time of recovery to the time of presentation in court.

6.     Any person that handles the exhibit at whatever stage should make a statement, testify in court and identify the exhibit.