Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mr. Pink's Picks: selected event-driven value investments -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Doo who wrote (1703)	7/7/1998 4:20:00 PM
From: Judge	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18998

No, dear man, my question ASKED facts; it didn't assume them. One might wonder, Jeff, not merely where you learned evidence but reading. I'm afraid your analysis of what would make a question objectionable under the rules of evidence is also incorrect: a question that assumes facts is objectionable only if it is a "leading" question purporting to elicit an admission that would be tainted by virtue of being based on facts not in evidence, as opposed to a "hypothetical", which is -- pay attention, now -- necessarily based on assumptions (i.e., what I asked you ). And in any case, even if an objection is raised to a question on such grounds it isn't necessarily fatal; the judge will normally permit the question to be answered pending a ruling issued at the close of all parties' cases as to whether evidence that substantiated the facts assumed in the question was introduced prior to the close of the case.. Clear now? You DO remind me of my son when he was little: when I would chide him for being naughty, he could think of no greater threat than "I hope the Bogeymen gets you, Mommy!" My, my, could the bogeyman be Mr. Pink? P.S. The last question wasn't leading, Jeff -- therefore not objectionable under the rules of evidence....