Is it customary with coroners to omit calling evidence that might be material towards corroborating testimonies where conflicting evidences arise, or links in the chain of evidence are broken?
Is it customary for coroners previous to summing up, to order their courts to be cleared of witnesses, strangers, and reporters, who had been admitted to hear the evidence?
Is it customary for coroners to summon witnesses in person, especially in cases of adjournment, where grave evidence has previously been given on oath?
Is it customary for coroners at adjourned inquests, to call upon parties, in person, suspected of felony, to inform them of it?
Is it customary for coroners to allow suspected parties present at inquests, to hold earnest conversation with jurymen, during enquiry?
In inquests of grave importance, is it advisable for coroners to summon jurymen all of one parish, especially if the jurymen are directly or indirectly connected with parties accessory before the facts, in cases of suspected felony?
If coroners doubt the veracity of a medical witness, and they state their reasons for doing so, are they not bound to suggest to the jury the propriety of calling other medical witnesses?
Is it customary for coroners to omit to recapitulate the evidence at the summing up, and neglect to explain the bearings of the law upon the various issues?
Is it customary for coroners to dictate verdicts, instead of leaving juries to come to their own unbiassed, deliberate, and honest conclusions?
