fandomhigh | Anatomy of a Trial [Period 4, Class #5, 6-10]

Current Mood: awake

Entry tags:

anatomy of a trial

Anatomy of a Trial [Period 4, Class #5, 6-10]

Class was still in the Danger Shop, and would be for the foreseeable future. It made Alex feel like a real prosecutor again. Call it a perk of the job.

"Today, we cross-examine witnesses," Alex said. "It's important that we all understand what that means. You are not Barry Payson. Payson, for those who don't know, was a fictional lawyer, one that liked to pull off dramatic courtroom reveals. He would interview a little old lady about IDing his client on the night in question, then prove the moon wasn't out and the little old lady wasn't wearing her glasses, so her ID is meaningless. Half the time, the little old lady would end up being guilty, and framing his client to boot. It makes for good drama, but that's not what you're doing here today.

"Instead, you're going to raise uncertainty. If a scientific expert is testifying, ask how accurate the tests in question are. Then ask what those numbers mean. If a DNA match is 99% accurate, how many people would match that closely to the sample? Ten? A hundred? A million? How many of those, from a statistical standpoint, would live in the tri-state area?

"If a friend is serving as a character witness, ask how well he really knows the person in question. Was he privy to some of the underhandedness we've discovered? If so, his judgment is iffy, and if not, how well can he really know the defendant? Ask if the friend would ever lie on the defendant's behalf. If no, suggest they aren't all that close, and if so, let that implication stand for itself.

"Every discrepancy matters. If official records differ by so much as two minutes, call attention to that fact. Was one side sloppy? Is there information missing? If you're on the defense and not the prosecution, then jump on any and all police errors available to you. Police officers are human beings, and even the most competent and professional will occasionally misstep. You don't need to suggest a vast police conspiracy to convict your client; it would suffice to hint that the police can't be sure enough that your client is guilty. Work for reasonable doubt.

"In the end, you're going to be suggesting that the other side is not as certain of its arguments as it pretends to be. If someone says 'I think,' ask how sure they are. What if it was earlier, or later? What if it was a different day entirely? You see how it works, I'm sure. So try it out and see how far you get.

"Lastly." She smiled at them. "Next week will be closing arguments, and then I'm open to suggestions for our last week together. If I don't hear a better idea, it'll be a final."

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

There will be subthreads here, once the rest of the OCD is up. Please hold while we try that extension!

The subthreads will list three possible witnesses you can cross-examine, just in case you're at a loss. You don't have to use any of those three; feel free to make up someone else entirely and call that person. This is just supposed to be helpful in case anyone is looking for ideas.

Edited 2010-06-10 10:29 (UTC)

Cross-examine one of the prosecution's witnesses:

- Michelle Herstein, the girl at whose party the drinking took place;
- Officer Roger Hauser, the arresting officer;
- Janine Bentyne, the responding EMT who first suspected that Ms. Callahan was intoxicated;

or another of your choosing!

Cross-examine one of the defense's witnesses:

- Vincent Baratto, an arson expert who claims the fires could be the result of faulty wiring;
- Miguel Galvão, who serves as the defendant's alibi (out drinking during the time of the second fire);
- Raoul Fabian, the defendant himself;

or another of your choosing!

Karla decided to cross-examine Vincent. There were lots of different ways to call his testimony into question and, unlike the other two, if he lied, it might be easier to tell.

Hopefully.

"Mr. Baratto," she said, turning to him. "What, exactly, makes you think that these fires could have been the result of faulty wiring, as opposed to arson?"

Mr. Baratto crossed his legs and gestured lightly with one hand. "I have inspected the damage at all three libraries," he stated. "One thing that all three libraries had in common was that they were remodeled in the late 70s."

He gave some dry exposition about a particular part that had been added, common to all three, which was known "in the industry" to fail. The sparks given off by a short could be enough to start a fire.

"I investigated that part, from all three fires," he said. "They sustained damage consistent with a short-out."

"Can anything else cause similar damage?" Karla asked.

Mr. Baratto frowned. "I suppose," he allowed. "The edges of the converter were singed. The explosion was outwards, not inwards. I suppose extreme duress could have triggered the explosion."

"So it's possible that the damage done by the fires that were already set could have created the short," Karla reiterated, making sure ~~she~~ the jury understood. "You also examined the path of the fire, is that right?"

"It's possible," Mr. Baratto allowed. "The stress from an ongoing fire might have caused the wiring to short. Unfortunately, due to the damage, we weren't able to discern whether that was the origin point of the fire."

"What, exactly, were you able to determine, then?" Karla asked, doing her best to sound interested and not accusatory.

"That the power converter malfunctioned," Mr. Baratto said, "and that the malfunction in question was consistent with starting a fire of this size and proportion."

"Though it could also have malfunctioned afterwards, due to the fire itself," Karla said, nodding, as if that was the logical conclusion to his statement. She was only repeating what he'd already said. "Did you search the library beyond the power converter?"

"Our findings were inconclusive," the man said. "Just that they could be consistent with a malfunction instead of arson."

"Could be," Karla repeated slowly. "Do you normally get called in to examine three burned-out libraries within this short span of time because of that kind of malfunction?"

Cross-examine one of the defense's witnesses:

- Olive Willingham, one of Dr. Perry's patients;
- Dr. David Brennan, chief resident of St. Vincent's Hospital, who chose not to revoke Dr. Perry's hospital privileges;
- Dr. Michael Perry, the defendant himself;

or another of your choosing!

Edited 2010-06-10 10:50 (UTC)

Squall, of course, picked Dr. Perry.

He glared at the doctor and stalked angrily toward the witness stand, holding the man's eyes.

(I know you did it. You know you did it. Let's get this over with.)

When he got to the stand, he turned and leaned against it casually, facing the jury. "So why'd you do it?" he asked, throwing the question over his shoulder at the doctor. "The money? You made a lot of money off these people, didn't you?"

"I didn't 'do' anything," Dr. Perry said indignantly. "Unless you're asking why I prescribed legal medication for sick patients. I'm a doctor. That's what I do."

"Yes, it's what you're supposed to do," Squall agreed. "So, why'd you prescribe so many, um..." -- he looked at something written on his hand -- "'Schedule II Controlled Substances'? You're really gonna try to pretend that they were all medically necessary?"

"There is no 'pretending,'" he huffed. "Schedule II Controlled Substances are legal, and recommended for pain management. Some of my patients have chronic conditions which require analgesics. The quality of life is a very real and serious problem for anyone with such an excruciating condition."

Squall TURNED, dramatically, and stared into the doctor's eyes. "But they don't," he said flatly. "Isn't it true that these drugs are highly addictive? And that someone who doesn't have a chronic pain condition could easily use them to get high?"

"They can be highly addictive," Dr. Perry allowed. "That's why they're controlled substances. That's why a doctor like myself needs to be sure that the medications are used responsibly."

"But you weren't," Squall reminded him. "You were being paid lots of money to misdiagnose patients so that they could get these drugs and use them recreationally. Your patients don't have the conditions you claim they do, and you prescribed way too high a dosage."

"None of that is true," the man said angrily. "I treated patients because I'm a doctor. Your accusations are groundless and insulting. I resent this treatment."

Cross-examine one of the prosecution's* witnesses:

- Alice Barthorpe, the bank manager who let the robbers into the vault;
- Officer Gary Corbin, the arresting officer;
- Samuel Howard, the teller who picked one of the three security guards in a voice line-up;

or another of your choosing!

(*Or you can take prosecution and cross-examine one of the defense's witnesses -- either is fine, I just picked one)

Cross-examine one of the defense's* witnesses:

- Fiona Bates, an accountant who states that the discrepancies in Ms. Salzman's account can be attributed to bank error;
- Marshall Hughes, a wealthy man who claims to be financially responsible for Ms. Salzman's lavish lifestyle;
- Regina Salzman, the defendant herself;

or another of your choosing!

(*Or you can take defense and cross-examine one of the prosecution's witnesses -- either is fine, I just picked one)

Edited 2010-06-10 11:01 (UTC)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Anatomy of a Trial [Period 4, Class #5, 6-10]

Activity: Cross Examinations - ANAT05

Hinata - Cross Examination - ANAT05

Karla - Cross Examination - ANAT05

Re: Karla - Cross Examination - ANAT05

Re: Karla - Cross Examination - ANAT05

Re: Karla - Cross Examination - ANAT05

Re: Karla - Cross Examination - ANAT05

Re: Karla - Cross Examination - ANAT05

Re: Karla - Cross Examination - ANAT05

Re: Karla - Cross Examination - ANAT05

Re: Karla - Cross Examination - ANAT05

Re: Karla - Cross Examination - ANAT05

Re: Karla - Cross Examination - ANAT05

Re: Karla - Cross Examination - ANAT05

Squall - Cross Examination - ANAT05

Re: Squall - Cross Examination - ANAT05

Re: Squall - Cross Examination - ANAT05

Re: Squall - Cross Examination - ANAT05

Re: Squall - Cross Examination - ANAT05

Re: Squall - Cross Examination - ANAT05

Re: Squall - Cross Examination - ANAT05

Re: Squall - Cross Examination - ANAT05

Re: Squall - Cross Examination - ANAT05

Vance - Cross Examination - ANAT05

Warren - Cross Examination - ANAT05