|
Authored by: PJ on Saturday, May 12 2012 @ 02:56 AM EDT |
Wait, though, for any motions that mention the
points made today (Mr. X admitted Y) or in
the closing statement, and you'll see how
they will use it. The exultation was because
he got something he thinks he can use. The
witness rarely knows what the "wrong" answer
is in such a scenario, but the lawyer does.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2012 @ 09:44 AM EDT |
My thoughts here are that the jury are no more technical experts than the
judge or lawyers. They do know they are here to render a verdict on a legal
case, and if it is in front of them in court, there is probably a real case to
try.
If the prosecuting lawyers asks a lot of questions with obvious answers (to the
technical expert) that are essentially irrelevant to the case in question - the
technical expert will look unsure, not understanding the *relevance* of the
question, and the jury sees an witness for the defense looking uncertain of
their testimony, and a triumphant prosecution lawyer who sure *must* have
proved something. We don't understand what is happening, but the language
is clear, the lawyer is winning!
If you have a case with no technical merit, this may actually seem a
reasonable gambit to play - remember, you don't have to actually be correct
to win the case, you merely need to convince a jury of non-experts that you
are correct, or more likely correct than the view presented by the opposing
lawyers.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|