|
Authored by: webster on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 01:04 PM EDT |
.
the Plaintiff does some sandbagging and saves a major argument for his rebuttal.
[He has to rebut something the Defendant, Google argues. He shouldn't go into
new, or unmentioned material. That would be unfair to the Defendant.]
.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: s65_sean on Monday, April 30 2012 @ 02:15 PM EDT |
The theory behind it is this, if I understand it correctly:
1. The plaintiff goes first to state their case.
2. The defendant goes next to rebut any statements made by the plaintiff and to
introduce arguments of their own.
3. The plaintiff goes last, but only to rebut anything said by the defendant in
step 2 above. if the plaintiff introduces any new information of their own, then
the defendant would get a chance to state a rebuttal and defense against the new
information.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|