#Cross Examination

[atroquinine-my-love]

Trick or Treat :)?

Treat! Trucy dragged him along :-)

[dinosaurwithablog]

The Case of the Lover's Leap....

Tired of listening to this woman lie, Perry is relentless in his redirect. He breaks her down, piece by piece, until she can't take it anymore.

The judge allows a recess for her to get her emotions under control and to sober up from the many, many tranquilizers that she took in an attempt to remain calm in the courtroom. As you can see, it didn't work out very well for her. Hamilton admits that Perry accomplished what he couldn't do in three days in one cross examination in court.

Then, Perry and Hamilton join forces to find the truth. And find the truth they do!! I love those guys!! 😁😍

The police break into the room just in time to prevent another murder and arrest the guilty party!! Don't you just love it when a plan comes together!! Oh wait, that's another show for another post 😉😁

[lunarsorcerer]

do you think sirens sing whatever the most popular music is like in the early 2010s were they singing dubstep?

[stateofitall]

Candy is for Children

[inspectorspacetimerevisited]

As it turns out, Shoop the Moop isn’t big on being cross-examined in a court of law,

so he turns violent on the Prirde warriors, instantly turning the Inspector against him.

[crashoutcore]

my team went so over on crosses my cross was literally ONE QUESTION

[tenth-sentence]

No one cross-examined F. Denton Voyles.

"The Pelican Brief" - John Grisham

[thefoxsbookofdays]

11th June

[email]

"It was just like the movies!" my client said, slapping me on the back.

The case was for residency. I acted for Dad who has had the kids 14 & 13 (there was another kid he has had much longer) for a year. The mother is quite crazy - but that is not clear on the documents and she had a real trump card: the kids had expressed a real & strong wish to live with their mother. With kids that age only the most unusual circumstances would override those wishes so things were not looking too bright for my client, the dad - a lovely guy, much liked by my staff because of his politeness and lack of drama.

There was a detailed family report prepared by a Social Worker. It said that despite the wishes the kids should stay with dad (the counsellor was onto the mother being a nut) but that alone was not going to get us over the line necessarily.

So I started cross-examining her and she was not looking too flash. Secret mobile phones given to the girls had raised His Honour's eyebrows and there was some other stuff but still nothing extraordinary.

Then it came out that one of the children had got into trouble at school because she had a copy of the Family Report in a plain envelope addressed to her. My instructing solicitor had actually been aware of this and that our client said the mother had given it to her (which a Judge would really frown on) so I thought I would have a go at her about it.

Cross-examination is all about framing questions with extreme care so you "close the gates" as we say in the game - which is an analogy to rounding up sheep - just as you work sheep slowly into a smaller and smaller space until you can do what you like with them - in cross examination you work them into a place where they have to concede the point you want them to concede. A bad cross examination is when you leave a gate open and they escape through it. Especially at the last minute. Just like sheep. Does that make sense?

It's like the old joke where a guy comes up to a man beside a dog and says "Does your dog bite?" The man replies "No" and then the other guy approaches the dog, is bitten by him and says "I thought you said your dog did not bite!" The other guy replies blandly: " That is not my dog..." That is just like a gate left open in cross-rxamination.

Anyway, she denies she gave the report to her, or encouraged anybody else to, or knew about it. No idea. Absolutely nothing to do with her directly or indirectly. Yes? certain? Absolutely certain.(This is all gate shutting) In fact she goes further and makes all these insinuations that my client has done it. She is a slimy little thing!

I know she is lying but I can do nothing about it. It would be great now not just how she did it because it would be a lapse of parental judgement but also because to establish that she actually lied about it would destroy her credit which

is about the best thing you can do in any case in any Court to any witness. The credit issue wins and loses cases.

So I get this document back from her and fiddle with it a bit while I ask other stuff and I notice that right at the top there is evidence it has been faxed. There is no number on it but it bears an imprinted printer brand " HP-JET 3500" or something like that. Then I think, hang on, and give it back to her. I ask her if she has noticed that it was faxed? Yes, she has. Does she recognise the printer? No. She doesn't. Not hers. No-one's that she knows etc etc (More gate closing) This haa all taken about 45 minutes by the way.

You see, what she doesn't realise is that I have leafed through the huge file from our office and found a letter from her with the same imprint.

I take the envelope to lunch.

We come back from lunch.

I start up again. then, in a panicked moment, can't find the flippin' envelope in the mass of papers on the bar table. I am just about to leave this topic defeated when a colleague comes up behind me "Did you leave this at the coffee shop?"!!!!

So I give it back to her, put it into evidence and then pull out one of her letters with the same imprint, folding over and hiding the imprint before I give it to her.

She accepts it as hers and I have the Court officer unfold the fold. Man O Man, the look on her face was worth a $1000 dollars and the look on the judge's face as he looks at her face roughly double that. The trap is sprung and she is gone a million. She has lied . We all know it and she knows we all know it.

From there on everything else was going to be a bonus but BUT! what a bonus we get! She then says: "This was stolen from my long-term partner!"

Um hello? What long term partner? She has come to Court in a residency case not disclosing the existence of a partner of 13 years! This, by the way and as you can probably guess, far from a good idea. The Judge is right up her: "Farce", "Outrageous" "Beggars Belief" he sets new records in adjectival-stringing together!

Then I said (guessing) "And he was here in Court earlier this week, wasn't he?"

"Yes" she says. Double whammy. More adjectives. "What is his name?" "I don't want to tell you" Bang! Triple word score! "So last time we were in Court you were asked if you were in a de facto relationship weren't you? (guessing again)

"Yes". "And you said "No" didn't you?" (another guess) "Yes". "So you lied?"

"Yes". Got her! Perjury. Go to Gaol go directly to Gaol!

The Court is in these circumstances entitled to make a referral to the DPP recommending a prosecution for perjury (Maximum penalty 21 years. Lol) but His Honour was more concerned with getting the case finished. He hinted to her counsel that now would be a good time to - well - just give up. Her counsel, who was incompetent, didn't get it and so it did not finish till next day. But in reality it was all over in that hour and a half.

[20 years ago]

[wauln]

[ FTX Founder Sam Bankman-Fried Found Guilty ]

[atroquinine-my-love]

What about a silly doodle of Chuunosuke 👀🧀

Happy early Halloween!!!

Happy early Halloween!!! He got lost :-(

[secretagentspydetectiveninja]

happy ides of march

[azulstryer]

It's so funny watching snippets of an Ace Attorney playthrough

[stimboardboy]

wild world keychains

[kilometresrufflefuck]

actually we didn't even cross-examine that parrot

[the-meme-monarch]

commission for @twoplustwoequalsjellyfish ! their ocs ryan, rylan, nova, and thea (doodle page) :]

playback video under the cut !

[tenth-sentence]

Commandant Morisset was not examined.

"Killing for Country: A Family History" - David Marr