• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dover Penn ID trial

Dan Beaird said:
I think the smart thing to do would be to have the defense call the witness and severely limit the lines of questioning. Isn't cross examination limited to subjects covered under direct? Maybe I'm thinking of re-direct...I'm no lawyer either, but I've seen one on TV.
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer, I haven't played one on TV (I have on the stage, but that's another matter) but this is what I seem to remember.

Direct Examination - you answer questions from the lawyer who called you to the stand, the lawyer who called you can not ask leading questions (unless they are entered as a hostile witness, where the rules of cross examination apply, as Buckingham was). The standards for relevance are a bit heavier too.
Cross - The other lawyer gets to question you, the stands for relevance are pretty lax, really, under cross, we could have asked him if he's ever been convicted of grave-robbing and said it spoke towards the character of the witness.
Re-Direct - The lawyer who calls you gets to ask you more questions, with the same rules as direct examination. This usually means that something has come up in cross that was unexpected and your lawyer wants to ask another question to clear things up.
 
This was my favorite bit:

That was when the judge started asking him to try to explain — um, how should I phrase this? — certain gaps and problems with his testimony.
Click to expand...
 
When a judge starts grilling a witness about inconsistencies in his testimony, and asks him if he knew he was under oath --- that's quite unusual, isn't it?

Kind of like a big flashing neon sign over the man's head saying "PERJURY".
 
CFLarsen said:
A case of perjury per jury.
Click to expand...
I dunno about perjury, for the reasons stated earlier, but I suspect a couple of school board members may be skating dangerously close to getting slapped with contempt of court charges.
And fortunately, this is a "bench trial"--no jury involved.
 
I am just trying to work out what the judge will say if he says the ID people win. Am finding this task very hard. I mean how do you decide for a side that appears to be not very honest?
 
I'd have to say the quality of the transcripts is superb, the prosecutors are excellent and the judge has a very dry sense of humour. Why isn't this trail televised? I'd pay-to-view it!
 
CFLarsen said:
...starring...?
Click to expand...

Keanu Reeves and Lawrence Fishbourne.


With Carrottop as Dr. Behe

c_top_8x10_red.gif

I'm tellin' ya, it's science"

Incidentially, when the Michael Jackson trial was going on, E Network (I think) did a dramatized reading of the transcripts nightly with actors playing all of he roles in a "courtroom".
 
Ah yes, the "departed hypothesized [SIZE=-1]co-investigator." One of the greatest terms in all of pseudoscience.

~~ Paul

[/SIZE]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom