I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that attorneys for both sides have to provide discovery for the other side. If Dustin Hoffman had information that Brad Pitt's character witness (Ferguson) had sexually abused boys along with Nokes, he would have had to share that information with the prosecution (Pitt) before using said info at trial. Therefore, there is no way that Pitt could argue that he did not know what Ferguson would say under cross-examination.
shareWhat part of the questioning reveals he has any such information? We know he has but Hoffman's character merely asks questions about Nokes role in Wilkinsons.
Schneider is trying to establish if Nokes had enemies suggesting that the crime could easily have been committed by someone else 'Mr. Ferguson...were you aware of any enemies he might have had?'. A good way to establish this is asking about his time working as a guard amongst young violent offenders. He builds on that by exploring what kind of guard he was and if his behaviour quite possibly would have lead to the making of enemies.
At no point does he categorically demonstrate he has any prior knowledge that Nokes was a child abuser. He asks character questions about Nokes as a guard and Ferguson gives the information.
We have to show the world that not all of us are like him: Henning von Tresckow.
Actually, the defense is not required to share evidence with the prosecution.
shareIf the defense called the witness then they would have to notify prosecution that they are calling him, not what they are going to say. Actually since it was Pitt's witness he would have to provide the same info to the defense. There's no requirement for the defense to say how they are going to rebuttal the witness's testimony.
sharei didn't get that either. why does the murder victim need a character witness anyway? as if it was nokes who's on trial and needs to be defended?
furthermore, ferguson's negative testimony of nokes' character would have helped the prosecutor - because knowing that nokes used to abuse inmates would expose a possible revenge motive: even if the prosecutor/jury had no information on the defendants' time in juvenile prison (which i found highly unbelievable btw), now they could put one and one together and suspect that tommy and john were inmates under nokes and therefore killed him. so their plan to damage nokes' reputation would only support tommy and johns guilt.
Did it occur to you that Pitt's character did not care? He was trying to lose the case! He was one of those abused by Nokes and Ferguson!
Actually the verdict of the trial is meaningless. What mattered was getting their story out. John and Tommy were probably better off(safer) in prison.
After Ferguson's testimony the shit hit the fan and that was the objective. Also Ferguson's testimony was not as bad for the prosecution as they portray. It is the motive for murdering Nokes.