fandomhigh | 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

"I'm not sure," she admitted, looking a bit sheepish. "But it had to do with the law so I thought perhaps?"

Hinata was aware that the law was an incredibly huge subject and that no one person was an expert on it all.

"I was... curious," Hinata said, "about where would you begin to create laws in a place where no law was before?"

Alex settled back in her chair, considering the ramifications of that question.

"I can think of a few different concerns there, offhand," Alex said. "For starters, whatever rules you set up, you'll need a way to enforce. You'll have to decide what punishments follow what crimes, because if breaking the law has no repercussions, then no one will follow the law. But I'm guessing you're asking more about which laws to start with? Or how to be sure the system is balanced?"

She fiddled with her sleeves. "Wh-Which laws to start with," Hinata said slowly, "and how... where do you start to implement them if they never existed before?"

[So. My internets were made of hate. I AM SO SORRY. :/ ]

"To start, you'll need to convince society of the benefits of implementing laws," she said gently. "Something that will help the majority of people. If everyone locks their doors at night because someone is stealing silverware at night, that's a good law to start with, first. Anyone caught stealing silverware will be locked up and forced to give it all back. If you address a need, people will respond more readily to the idea of the rule of law."

(zomg no problem! sp is yay!)

Edited 2010-06-12 21:19 (UTC)

"So... influence is a good place to start?" She made it half a question. "If someone were to... want... to change things?"

"Influence always helps," Alex agreed. "No matter what you're doing. But if you can get most of the people to agree that it'll be better for everyone, as a whole, to set up certain laws -- if people see the benefits? It won't be an uphill battle, at that point."

She looked thoughtful at that.

"Would you say it is m-more important to get the people to agree," she asked, "or to get the Council that decides such things to agree?"

Because the people could make the Council change their minds, if mattered enough to them.

"Tough call," Alex said. "I'd go with the populace, strangely enough. If a law is highly unpopular, and broken repeatedly, then you run the risk of locking up half your citizenry or dismissing the law altogether. The Council might take its cue from the populace, if they're adamant enough."

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

Re: Talk to Alex - ANAT05

Re: Talk to Alex - ANAT05

Re: Talk to Alex - ANAT05

Re: Talk to Alex - ANAT05

Re: Talk to Alex - ANAT05

Re: Talk to Alex - ANAT05

Re: Talk to Alex - ANAT05

Re: Talk to Alex - ANAT05