Beck's genius, I think, is his adroitness in handling those two-edged swords that litigation presents.
Some facts or issues have both upsides and downsides - so a careful lawyer may not get into them because they can blow up in your face. So far Beck has on several occasions danced a witness up to the point of grappling with a two-edged sword, and Gore's lawyers have grabbed the end that is good for them only to have Beck swing around with the end that is bad for them.
He has also, on several occasions, grabbed a two-edged sword so that the opponents have rushed to grab the other edge, only to use it against them.
For example, when Marais was testifying, Beck started leading him down the path of testifying about things a behavioral psychologist would look at. I was thinking, "look out, it's a trap"! But Gore's lawyer came rushing into it. "This man is not a behavioral psychologist!" Beck, "Right, so Mr. Marais, is this an issue that a statistician would need a behavioral psychologist to take a look at before he formed an opinion?" Marais, "yes." And since Gore's statistician didn't, that undercuts Gore's case, which point was driven home by Gore's own lawyer. Pow!
Did Beck deliberately trap Gore's lawyer (can't remember the guy's name, the one with the wavy hair) or did he just take advantage of the double-edged nature of the issue? Whichever it was, his instincts are superb.
I admire this because I am fond of two-edged swords, myself. I like to draw little tree-diagrams to set up potential pitfalls and then figure out how to evade them. People who are not patient, or don't enjoy this game, don't play it well. Gore's lawyers don't seem to play this well, at least not the one with the wavy hair. He only sees one or two moves ahead.
I think Boies can see several moves ahead but he's not scoring points with the judge. His tactics might work with a jury, though.
For example, Boies attempted to use the term "thorough statistical analysis" in two different ways during his cross-examination of Marais. It's the logical fallacy of ambiguity, and I am sure Boies knows his logical fallacies, and I think Sauls does, too, if not through training, than through simple reasoning. So why try it? It's a nonsense trap, it only works with fools. |
