The One Witness Rule -- What a Waste of Time!

I spent this morning reading the voir dire section of a record for appeal.  My client was charged of aggravated sexual assault of a child.  I did not represent him at trial.  He was sentenced to life in prison.   Voir dire is the phase of trial where the jury is selected from a larger pool of potential jurors. During voir dire, the judge will speak and as questions, as well as the government attorney and defense attorney. 

In every trial I have watched or participated in, and in every record I have read, I see the most annoying waste of time ever during voir dire.  The big waste of time goes something like this:

Government:  Ok folks, so, let's just say, I don't think it will happen but let's just say there was only one witness. Right? Ok? Just one witness.  And let's say this witness testified.  And let's just say she was the only witness to testify.  And let's just say you believed her beyond a reasonable doubt.  Here, we go, here we go, this is the question.  And remember, voir dire is my only chance to speak to you and in French it means "to speak the truth." So, if we put on only one witness, and you believed that witness beyond a reasonable doubt, could you convict the defendant?  COULD YOU CONVICT THE DEFENDANT BASED ON THE TESTIMONY OF ONE WITNESS WHO YOU BELIEVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT?

The prosecutor will then go person by person or row to figure out who is not capable of doing this.

This is the biggest waste of time, ever, in a court room.  The government lawyers knows darn well whether he intends to present one witness.  Now, these line of voir dire questioning is especially common in sex cases.  As one judge explained it, the one witness rule exists because there is usually only two witnesses to a sex crime: the complainant and the defendant.  I would like to note, however, that his interpretation of "the legislature's intent" is wrong.  There is a different between witnesses and eyewitnesses.  In that case, why don't they call it the "one eyewitness rule?"  That may take care of some of the confusion.

But why waste time?  Why waste the jury's time?  Why make a frivolous claim?  I suppose the government lawyers are looking for people actually want good, reliable, independent evidence so that they can exercise a strike on those individuals.  

But hey, it could work out for us.  Hopefully, some juror, subconsciously is thinking, "Why the hell did that government lawyer waste my time and ask me a stupid, question when he knew darn well there was going to be more than one witness?  Ef him, I don't trust him."

(Steps down off soap box.)  Ladies and gentlemen of the audience, thank you.   Next time a government lawyer asks you this question, go Socratic on his ass and ask why he is asking a pointless question and wasting your time.