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.

Pastimes : Business Wire Falls for April Fools Prank, Sues FBNers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Level Head who wrote (2416)	5/13/1999 6:51:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 3795

A common list among attorneys. But some of those questions were, unfortunately, both reasonable and necessary. Sometimes it is essential to nail facts down absolutely so the other side can't try to weasel out of them. Sad, but true. For example: 29. Q: Are you qualified to give a urine sample? If defendant had been asked to give urine sample at police station and refused, and was charged therefore with obstruction of justice or some such, if the question hadn't been asked the defense attorney could argue that the prosecution hadn't proved he was capable of complying since, for example, perhaps he had a medical condition which required a catheter to eliminate, or required a sterile environment, or was on his way to a medical appointment and had taken some prelimiary drugs and was told not to urinate until he reached the medical center so they could measure the percentage of drugs in his system, or any other crazy idea. Point is that the prosecution has to nail down that he could have complied, and refused. Or: 17. Q: You were there until the time you left, is that true? Maybe he testified that he arrived at the disco at 9:00 and left at 2:00. Defense attorney will argue that therefore he couldn't have robbed the liquor store at 11:00. But maybe he left the disco at 10:30 and returned at 11:30, then left again at 2:00. Would not make his testimony untruthful. So the prosecution nails down that he claims he was there the entire time. Or: 20. Q: She had three children, right? A: Yes. Q: How many were boys? A: None. Q: Were there any girls? Leave off the last question. Then the fact is that the witness never did testify that she had three daughters. With the intelligence of some jurors, an attorney could hammer that point and possibly win over one juror to the position that there was an unresolved question of fact. Sometimes lawyers really do say dumb things. (BUT: if every word you uttered all through your work day were transcribed, do you guarantee that you wouldn't say some things that looked pretty stupid put into writing that way?) And sometimes witnesses do give dumb answers, or smart-ass answers (like the question on autopsies, where the doctor obviously knew what was being asked and just wanted to get a laugh at the lawyer's expense). But again -- just write down every word you say at work for a whole day and let hundreds of people read it word for word. Then you'll have a bit more sympathy for the things that slip through! End of sermon <g>.