Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 60 (click to see context) from:
* "I can no longer represent my client in this matter." (Lawyer speak for, most often, "My client specifically asked me to lie to the court," although it can also mean "My client and I have just discovered we have a conflict of interest," "My client is a fucking asshole and I hate him and I just can't work with him anymore," "My client up and disappeared and I've been trying to find him for months but still have no clue where he is," or "My client refuses to pay me.")
to:
* "I can no longer represent my client in this matter." (Lawyer speak for, most often, "My client specifically asked me to lie to the court," although it can also mean "My client and I have just discovered we have a conflict of interest," "My client is a fucking asshole and I hate him and I just can't work with him anymore," "My client up and disappeared and I've been trying to find him for months but still have no clue where he is," or "My client refuses refuses/is no longer able to pay me.")
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** it should be noted that a jury is supposed to not take into consideration an invocation of the 5th Amendment in criminal trials. However, while pleading the 5th in a civil trial can not be held against you in a subsequent criminal trial, it CAN (under some circumstances) be taken into consideration by the jury in the civil trial itself. So Tony Stark pleading the 5th in a lawsuit doesn't have to worry about that being used against him criminally, but (depending on circumstances) the jury for the lawsuit MAY be allowed to weigh it when reaching a decision.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 5,6 (click to see context) from:
[[caption-width-right:324:Could be worse. Antoine could have grilled her on the stand instead.]]
to:
[[caption-width-right:324:Could be worse. Antoine He could have grilled her on the stand instead.]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** "Take him/her down", on a related note, is used in British courts to indicate that the witness is excused from the stand back into the custody of whoever currently has responsibility for them. Used when the defendant is testifying, or when the witness is being held on another matter, or is a prison informant.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 77,78 (click to see context) from:
** "(Calls for) Speculation", "Speculative" - the lawyer is asking the witness to essentially guess about something: "What did it look like the victim did for a living?", or the (lay) witness had just said something that goes beyond recounting their recollections of the event and moves into speculation about, for example, the defendant's state of mind in the moment. Expert witnesses are much harder to hit with Speculation objections because speculating (within the bounds of tried and tested principles, if the higher is doing their job) is a part of their role.
** A lay witness's speculative testimony can sometimes be admitted ("Objection overruled!") under such categories as "relating a present-sense impression" - sure, you didn't actually ''see'' the defendant do drugs right there in front of you, but if you thought based on their behaviour that they might be high, you ''might'' be allowed to say so.
** A lay witness's speculative testimony can sometimes be admitted ("Objection overruled!") under such categories as "relating a present-sense impression" - sure, you didn't actually ''see'' the defendant do drugs right there in front of you, but if you thought based on their behaviour that they might be high, you ''might'' be allowed to say so.
to:
** "(Calls for) Speculation", "Speculative" - the lawyer is asking the witness to essentially guess about something: "What did it look like the victim did for a living?", or the (lay) witness had just said something that goes beyond recounting their recollections of the event and moves into speculation about, for example, the defendant's state of mind in the moment. Expert witnesses are much harder to hit with Speculation objections because speculating (within the bounds of tried and tested principles, if the higher Judge is doing their job) is a part of their role.
** *** A lay witness's speculative testimony can sometimes be admitted ("Objection overruled!") under such categories as "relating a present-sense impression" - sure, you didn't actually ''see'' the defendant do drugs right there in front of you, but if you thought based on their behaviour that they might be high, you ''might'' be allowed to say so.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 77 (click to see context) from:
** "(Calls for) Speculation" - the lawyer is asking the witness to essentially guess about something: "What did it look like the victim did for a living?"
to:
** "(Calls for) Speculation" Speculation", "Speculative" - the lawyer is asking the witness to essentially guess about something: "What did it look like the victim did for a living?"living?", or the (lay) witness had just said something that goes beyond recounting their recollections of the event and moves into speculation about, for example, the defendant's state of mind in the moment. Expert witnesses are much harder to hit with Speculation objections because speculating (within the bounds of tried and tested principles, if the higher is doing their job) is a part of their role.
** A lay witness's speculative testimony can sometimes be admitted ("Objection overruled!") under such categories as "relating a present-sense impression" - sure, you didn't actually ''see'' the defendant do drugs right there in front of you, but if you thought based on their behaviour that they might be high, you ''might'' be allowed to say so.
** A lay witness's speculative testimony can sometimes be admitted ("Objection overruled!") under such categories as "relating a present-sense impression" - sure, you didn't actually ''see'' the defendant do drugs right there in front of you, but if you thought based on their behaviour that they might be high, you ''might'' be allowed to say so.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 84 (click to see context) from:
* "Order in the courtroom!" The Judge says this while banging a gavel[[note]]... though not in UK courtrooms, despite some TV depictions - British judges do not use a gavel, instead being expected to maintain order by dint of strength of personality and an expectation of due deference from counsel[[/note]]. Disruption of the order in the courtroom might result in expulsion from said room, or even being held in contempt. This is mostly American. In more comedic works, one can expect someone to respond to this with [[IncrediblyLamePun a food order.]]
to:
* "Order in the courtroom!" The Judge says this while banging a gavel[[note]]... though not in UK courtrooms, despite some TV depictions - British judges do not use a gavel, instead being expected to maintain order by dint of strength of personality and an expectation of due deference from counsel[[/note]]. Disruption of the order in the courtroom might result in expulsion from said room, or even being held in contempt. This is mostly American. In more comedic works, one can expect someone to respond to this with [[IncrediblyLamePun [[{{Pun}} a food order.]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 66 (click to see context) from:
*** Under US law, "hearsay" has a more technical meaning--it means introducing a statement that (a) was made out of court, (b) for the purpose of proving that the content of statement was true. So if a witness testifies that "Alice said that Ben is the murderer", that is inadmissible for the purpose of proving Ben is the murderer, but is admissible for the purpose of proving that Alice believes that Ben is the murderer (because in the latter situation the statement isn't being used to prove Ben is the murderer, it's being used to make a claim about Alice's state of mind).
to:
*** Under US law, "hearsay" has a more technical meaning--it means introducing a statement (a) that (a) was made out of court, (b) for the purpose of proving that the content of statement was true. So if a witness testifies that "Alice said that Ben is the murderer", that is inadmissible for the purpose of proving Ben is the murderer, but is may be admissible for the purpose of proving that Alice believes that Ben is the murderer (because in the latter situation the statement isn't being used to prove Ben is the murderer, it's being used to make a claim about Alice's state of mind).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 66 (click to see context) from:
*** Under US law, "hearsay" has a more technical meaning--it means introducing a statement that (a) was made out of court, (b) for the purpose of proving that the content of statement was true. So if a witness testifies that "Alice said that Ben is the murderer", that is inadmissible for the purpose of proving Ben is the murderer, but is admissible for the purpose of proving that Alice believes that Ben is the murderer (because in the latter situation the statement isn't being used to prove Ben is the murderer).
to:
*** Under US law, "hearsay" has a more technical meaning--it means introducing a statement that (a) was made out of court, (b) for the purpose of proving that the content of statement was true. So if a witness testifies that "Alice said that Ben is the murderer", that is inadmissible for the purpose of proving Ben is the murderer, but is admissible for the purpose of proving that Alice believes that Ben is the murderer (because in the latter situation the statement isn't being used to prove Ben is the murderer).murderer, it's being used to make a claim about Alice's state of mind).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
***Under US law, "hearsay" has a more technical meaning--it means introducing a statement that (a) was made out of court, (b) for the purpose of proving that the content of statement was true. So if a witness testifies that "Alice said that Ben is the murderer", that is inadmissible for the purpose of proving Ben is the murderer, but is admissible for the purpose of proving that Alice believes that Ben is the murderer (because in the latter situation the statement isn't being used to prove Ben is the murderer).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 89,91 (click to see context) from:
* "Permission to treat the witness as hostile?" Once a witness has contradicted himself or changed his testimony from pre-trial discovery, this gives the attorney the right to be more abrasive and direct in their line of questioning during direct examination, and avoid an objection for badgering the witness.
** Specifically, it allows the attorney to ask leading questions. When an attorney calls a witness to present evidence for them, the witness is presumed to be friendly, and so the attorney can only ask open-ended questions. If the witness starts re-canting earlier statements or lying on the stand, this allows the lawyer who called him to force the witness to say what he needs under oath (or perjure themselves).
*** By definition, during a cross-examination, a witness is considered hostile (they're not on the questioning lawyer's side, after all).
** Specifically, it allows the attorney to ask leading questions. When an attorney calls a witness to present evidence for them, the witness is presumed to be friendly, and so the attorney can only ask open-ended questions. If the witness starts re-canting earlier statements or lying on the stand, this allows the lawyer who called him to force the witness to say what he needs under oath (or perjure themselves).
*** By definition, during a cross-examination, a witness is considered hostile (they're not on the questioning lawyer's side, after all).
to:
* "Permission to treat the witness as hostile?" Once If a witness has contradicted himself themselves or changed his their testimony from pre-trial discovery, this gives the attorney the right to ask the judge for permission to be more abrasive and direct in their line of questioning during direct examination, and avoid an objection for badgering the witness.
**examination. Specifically, it allows the attorney to ask leading questions.questions on direct without the possibility of an objection for Leading. When an attorney calls a witness to present evidence for them, the witness is presumed to be friendly, and so the attorney can only ask open-ended questions. If the witness starts re-canting recanting earlier statements or lying on the stand, this allows the lawyer who called him them to try to force the witness to say what he it is the lawyer needs them to say under oath (or perjure risk perjuring themselves).
*** ** By definition, during a cross-examination, a witness is automatically considered hostile (they're - they're not on the questioning lawyer's side, after all).all. A good cross-examination will, however, adjust the tone of the questioning based on the likely sympathies of the jury - a sweet old grandmother will (usually) get a much more polite cross than a career criminal, even when both of them are considered hostile witnesses.
**
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** "Unresponsive" - more fully, "move to strike as unresponsive". This is pretty much the only objection the ''questioning'' lawyer can raise against the ''current witness'' - that they are not answering the question they have been asked. If granted, the witness' answer in its entirety is struck from the record and the question is asked again, possibly with some admonishment from the Judge if they think the witness needs it. Triggering answers can range from deliberate evasion, to the witness just being a terrible rambler who hasn't remembered one damn thing from their witness prep.
