In a bench trial, yes. In a jury trial, this is up to the jury.
A trial lawyer may use cross-examination to impeach a witness and, thereby, undermine his credibility; on the other hand, the lawyer may use cross to elicit facts from the witness which are favorable to his side. See below link:
the final round of questioning of a witness in a trial
The methods of judicial selection for federal appellate judges state appellate and state trial judges
It depends on why the witness is not there, what kind of witness it is, what kind of case it is, and what sort of evidence the witness is expected to give. In a criminal trial, the case may be dismissed if there is no witness. Or the trial may be delayed while law enforcement finds and brings the witness to court (if they are ignoring a subpoena). If the witness is ill or travelling, the case may be continued to wait for the witness. If the witness is not key, the parties may proceed without him/her, or they may shift around the order or witnesses to allow that witness to appear later in the trial.
Trial lawyers can use cross-examination to impeach a witness's testimony, thereby undermining the credibility of that witness on that particular point or as part of a general assault on the witness's veracity. But, good cross-examiners will when appropriate use cross-examination to elicit facts favorable to his side from the witness. It is, therefore, not necessarily the best strategy to attack every witness. See, http://www.relentlessdefense.com/relentless-criminal-cross-examination.html
Trial lawyers can use cross-examination to impeach a witness's testimony, thereby undermining the credibility of that witness on that particular point or as part of a general assault on the witness's veracity. But, good cross-examiners will when appropriate use cross-examination to elicit facts favorable to his side from the witness. It is, therefore, not necessarily the best strategy to attack every witness. See, http://www.relentlessdefense.com/relentless-criminal-cross-examination.html
Peter Oliver was one of the trial judges.
Trial lawyers can use cross-examination to impeach a witness's testimony, thereby undermining the credibility of that witness on that particular point or as part of a general assault on the witness's veracity. But, good cross-examiners will when appropriate use cross-examination to elicit facts favorable to his side from the witness. It is, therefore, not necessarily the best strategy to attack every witness. See, http://www.relentlessdefense.com/relentless-criminal-cross-examination.html
Are you asking about a witness?
A trial with no jury (aka Trial by Judge or Bench Trial) is where the judge will act as the trier of fact and law. Basically, the presiding judge will determine what facts to believe and render a decision based on his view of the facts. The judge will generally hear the witnesses, go over the evidence, and give the weight and credibility of the evidence as he/she sees fit.
A trial with no jury (aka Trial by Judge or Bench Trial) is where the judge will act as the trier of fact and law. Basically, the presiding judge will determine what facts to believe and render a decision based on his view of the facts. The judge will generally hear the witnesses, go over the evidence, and give the weight and credibility of the evidence as he/she sees fit.
On Trial - 1956 Strange Witness - 2.5 was released on: USA: 3 August 1959