windsor wrote:lawgrad91 wrote:CathyCA wrote:Thank you for all of the trial vibes yesterday. I inhabited that case! I immersed myself in the facts of the case, I mastered the minutiae of the case law, and I fine-tuned my closing argument by pointing out a credibility problem (a time-space continuum thing which I refuted with documentary evidence from my investigator (aka a "bald-faced lie")). At the time, I even amazed myself with that flash of brilliance! My client, my investigators, my witnesses and the opposing attorney all thought that I kicked some major butt.
Ultimately, none of their opinions matter. The judge is going to issue his ruling next week.
So, I'm still worried. So, could everyone please point their vibrators in the direction of Judge GGB? Thanks!
Good morning!
When you have the facts, pound the facts. When you have the law, pound the law. When you have neither, pound the table.
Vibes for the one in the black dress to rule for you, CathyCA!
I heard it as when the facts are with you call on the facts, when the law is with you call on the law, if neither is with you call the other guy names.
The only thing I remember for my one and only law class:
Never aks a hostile witness a question you do not already know the answer to.
I did this once, memorably. A man was charged with pointing a firearm at his wife. The defense attorney put him on the stand and he was adamant that he didn't point a gun at his wife. He said it several times. "I didn't point a gun at my wife."
In Virginia, a person can be convicted for brandishing a weapon if it's something that can be mistaken for a gun.
So I asked him, in very loud and strong tones, "Mr. Jones, what DID you point at your wife?"
He replied, very softly, "
a dildo." Well, I couldn't hear him so I said, "What?" and he said, louder this time, "a dildo."
He didn't get convicted, but I figure the embarrassment was sufficient. He hasn't been back to court, not even for a traffic ticket, since.
Iron Duke #1471997.
