united-states landlord tenant court new-jersey
Can a Defendant Insist on Cross Examining the Plaintiff Directly in a LT Trial?
<p>This question relates to a landlord tenant trial in NJ in which the landlord (&quot;Plaintiff&quot;) is being represented by an attorney.</p>
<p>The Defendant wishes to cross examine the Plaintiff directly because it is unlikely that the Plaintiff's attorney has much knowledge about the topics the Defendants intends to discuss. The Defendant also believes that the attorney may do a better job at concealing the truth.</p>
<p>Does the Defendant have a legal right to insist on cross examining the Plaintiff or can the Plaintiff argue that he isn't required to agree to be cross examined directly as it infringes on his legal right to be represented by an attorney?</p>

<p>Yes, Defendant may compel Plaintiff to appear and may cross-examine Plaintiff personally. The right to counsel does not include the right to have an attorney testify for you at trial.</p>
<p>At trial or deposition, Plaintiff's lawyer generally has no business testifyng at all, and his statements would not be evidence. If the attorney's testimony is necessary for trial, he would likely be disqualified from representing Plaintiff.</p>
<p>Defendant is unlikely to persuade the judge to question Plaintiff for him. The judge might ask questions to clarify answers that Defendant elicits himself, but he might also just rule based on whatever information he receives, regardless of how clear it is.</p>

<p>If the plaintiff chooses to testify (as s/he might very well, because the plaintiff often best knows the events giving rise to the cause of action) the defendant (or the defendant's lawyer) may cross-examine. If the plaintiff does not choose to testify, the the defendant may call him or her as a witness, to testify to any relevant matters within the plaintiff's knowledge, and the defendant may ask the judge for permission to treat the plaintiff as a hostile witness. This allows much the same rules to apply as on cross-examination, and such a ruling would be routine.</p>
<p>Much the same rules would apply should the plaintiff wish to call the defendant to testify.</p>
<p>Neither party's lawyer may testify for that party, and indeed normally neither lawyer may testify at all.</p>
<p>Being represented by a lawyer is in no way incompatible with testifying to relevant, admirable facts.</p>
