The defendant brought a motion for a nunc pro tunc order to retroactively authorize communication with his counsel during cross-examination, which was in contravention of a direct court order.
The plaintiffs opposed, denying they had consented to such communication.
The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding that no consent was proven and, more importantly, that leave of the court was required regardless of any alleged consent, especially given the explicit court order.
The court determined that the breach would be considered when assessing the weight of the defendant's evidence, particularly concerning the alleged unlawful appropriation of gold.
