Madeleine:Two British men declared arguidos and a British couple are witnesess

ultimaThule wrote:


In the 2011 trial of Lord Taylor of Warwick, a Tory peer who fiddled his expenses, the defence made its opening speech immediately following that of the prosecution which may not have been the best tactic as he was sentenced to a year's imprisonment although, unsurprisingly, there's no mention of this episode on his website, nor of the fact that he's been banned for life from the legal profession.    

If defence counsel wishes to make an opening speech immediately following that of the prosecution it's highly unlikely a judge would object to a change in the more usual order of the proceedings and, where a trial is expected to be of lengthy duration, it could be considered prudent or beneficial for the defence to state their case early. .  

Otherwise, the defence customarily makes their opening speech after the prosecution has concluded its case. Opening speeches are, of course, entirely separate from and not to be confused with the closing arguments which are made after both sides have finished calling witnesses, submitting documents, etc.

The USA's justice system is not dissimilar to that of the UK from which it largely derives; both are based on common law and are adversarial as opposed to inquisitorial.  However, grand juries have been eliminated in the UK and its prosecutors can amend an indictment after a case has been committed. In the US any such alteration would violate the Fifth Amendment and require the case to be resubmitted to a grand jury. .