8 key factors drive what your best defense strategy is: Defendant’s explanation of what happened, why and credibility. Witness testimony and credibility. Provable facts and physical evidence. Police reports, errors and credibility. Expert, 3rd party reports and testimony. Penal code charge and the required crime elements to prove.
Do not argue about an answer. It diminishes your ethos with the jury. DO NOT PERMIT THE WITNESS TO SIMPLY REPEAT ON CROSS WHAT THE WITNESS SAID ON DIRECT If you allow the witness to repeat large portions of earlier testimony, the only thing you accomplish is reinforcing that testimony in the jurors’ minds. NEVER PERMIT THE WITNESS TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING
Which of the following is not a tactic the defense attorney may use to diminish your credibility? (13.3.7) A. rapid-fire questions B. condescending counsel D. badgering/belligerent behavior E. presenting false evidence
Which of the following is NOT a tactic the defense attorney may use to diminish your credibility? (13.3.7) Presenting false evidence. ... _____ follows the cross examination by the defense attorney when the prosecutor may question the witness to clarify statements or answers given during the cross-examination. ... A surety or agent may not ...
The attorney using such tactics can damage his or her “own personal enrichment and professional standing.” Being discourteous to other members of the legal profession makes the job all the more difficult and “takes the fun from the practice of law.” Furthermore, “word gets around” and those “with a sterling reputation [] for civility stand a better chance of receiving civility in return.” In addition, when a lawyer’s writing is laden with overly-aggressive statements it could potentially cause irreparable damage to a client’s case. A judge may see the attacks on opposing counsel and “‘discount merits of the argument.'” As judges “determine the parties’ rights and obligations by applying fact to law,” they may discount the merits of an argument because “incivility projects weakness” whereas “civility projects strength.” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated nasty comments about the opposing side or ridiculing comments “are just distractions. You should aim to persuade the judge by the power of your reasoning and not by denigrating the opposing side. …If the other side is truly bad, the judges are smart enough to understand that; they don’t need the lawyer’s aid.”
There can be many reasons for this: one party is not ready for trial, one party does not want to go through a trial, or the parties, apart from emotional discord, may actually agree or be willing to compromise.
If after serving discovery, the Rambo litigator fails to produce documents you are entitled to, attempt to resolve the issue by conferring with opposing counsel first. If that fails, a court order is the next option. A motion to compel discovery is a request for the court to order the opposing side to disclose or produce discovery. The federal and state rules require that the parties attempt to resolve the issue before resorting to court action. The federal rules require “a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action” with the motion to compel. Local court rules also require a certification with the motion to compel.
Any document that is not privileged, is relevant to the subject matter involved, and is proportional is discoverable through depositions, written interrogatories, requests for production of documents, mental or physical examinations, and requests for admission. Not only is relevant information discoverable, but so is the “existence, description, ...
Depositions may be recorded by a video tape or similar means provided that the notice of deposition must state it is to be videotaped and it states “the name, address and employer of the recording technician.” The video recording of the deposition is in addition to the usual recording and transcription method unless the parties agree to the contrary. Video recording the deposition may curb counsel’s transgressions because he or she will know that the video tape will be available for use later should counsel act inappropriately. Moreover, the misconduct will be easier to demonstrate in front of a judge.
Under the Missouri Supreme Court Rules, “parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party… provided the discovery is proportional to the needs of the case considering the totality of the circumstances…” Any document that is not privileged, is relevant to the subject matter involved, and is proportional is discoverable through depositions, written interrogatories, requests for production of documents, mental or physical examinations, and requests for admission. Not only is relevant information discoverable, but so is the “existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any books, documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter.” The requested information does not have to be admissible to be discoverable “if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Any party may then serve upon the other party a request to “produce and permit the party making the request … to inspect and copy” any designated documents or “test, or sample any tangible things” which are relevant, not privileged, and proportional to the needs of the case.
As judges “determine the parties’ rights and obligations by applying fact to law,” they may discount the merits of an argument because “incivility projects weakness” whereas “civility projects strength.”.