1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_tdLCFRaPY&t=152s

Basically, Lieutenant George (accidentally called to be the defense counsel, because Baldrick sent for the wrong person) tries to get Captain Darling, who is the prosecutor against Captain Blackadder, to be a defense witness.

Darling actually does have firsthand accounts of the events in question, he tried to phone Blackadder to tell him his orders from the general were to do something, but Blackadder claimed that there was static on the line.

Granted, I don't know of any reason why Darling would be qualified as a lawyer either.

Improve this question
6
  • "I don't know of any reason why Darling would be qualified as a lawyer either." In courts martial, cases were generally prosecuted and defended by military officers rather than lawyers (at least until very recently and even then, only for more serious offenders - in modern U.S. practice, legally trained JAG corps lawyer-officers now fill this role). From the uniforms in the video, I would assume a WWII or earlier context in the U.K., which would predate lawyer-officer court martial trials there.
    – ohwilleke
    Commented Jan 29 at 20:04
  • The charge was shooting a carrier pigeon. The pigeon happened to be General Melchett's beloved pet pigeon - Melchett presiding over the court martial and called as witness for the prosecution by Captain Darling.
    – Lag
    Commented Jan 29 at 20:44
  • 1
    "General, did you own a lovely, plump, speckily pigeon called Speckled Jim, which you hand reared from a chick and which was your only childhood friend?"
    – WOPR
    Commented Jan 29 at 21:31
  • 2
    @ohwilleke It's set during the First World War. It is effectively a satire of life in the trenches.
    – Steve Melnikoff
    Commented Jan 30 at 9:23
  • 1
    @SteveMelnikoff Are you suggesting I shouldn't learn legal precedents from "Night Court", either?
    – Barmar
    Commented Jun 27 at 22:44

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

Darling actually does have firsthand accounts of the events in question,

people who have knowledge and relevant testimony are generally allowed in courts and courts-martial. A prosecutor who was part of the case would generally be recused.

Improve this answer
3
  • 1
    I would bet that this answer is correct. I'm downvoting anyway because it appears to just be guess and does not cite any law.
    – bdb484
    Commented Jan 20 at 19:06
  • I wouldn't be too confident of these conclusions in the court-martial context, particularly re the recusal of the prosecutor.
    – ohwilleke
    Commented Jan 29 at 20:05
  • 2
    @ohwilleke for the US, I can find no proscription in the UCMJ or Military rules of Evidence of a trial counsel providing direct evidence, but I would find it highly unlikely that the convening authority would allow the trial counsel to remain at such a position upon finding out they needed to provide direct evidence.
    – Tiger Guy
    Commented Jan 29 at 22:22

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .