Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Final Round Discussion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Voir Dire View Post

    Rivers saying he gave Anderson a push is entirely consistent with his affidavit, specifically lines 56 through 59.

    We need to be clear. Attorneys arguing facts that aren't in the case is not an improper invention. Attorneys arguing that a witness's testimony implies something other than what's in their affidavit is not improper invention. The only improper invention I saw that round was Rivers on cross, denying that he would have told Anderson not to make that specific post had he known about it. This answer was never referenced at any other point in trial, and there's no reason to believe it had any bearing on the outcome of the round.
    "But I also told Jerri that my connections at the School District were reporting we might lose the School District contract to Empowermilk. I told Jerri there was still some time left, but that it was probably going to take a big splash to salvage the school lunch contract from going to Empowermilk. Jerri understood, and Jerri said Jerri would try to think of an idea for how to help us out."

    As someone else said, the "push" must be looked at in context. Everyone watching that trial knew the "push" meant putting the two guys in the stores. The lines you mentioned in no way support the theory or fact that Rivers planted the two men in the store.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Voir Dire View Post

      Rivers saying he gave Anderson a push is entirely consistent with his affidavit, specifically lines 56 through 59.
      This is an unreasonable interpretation of how the direct played out. In context of what they were actually saying, it's abundantly clear that the push cannot refer to the phone call in 56-59, because they had already discussed that phone call where he's begging her to do something and she does nothing - in the presentation of the theory, they're clearly establishing he did something other than, and in addition to, that single conversation: that's not supported by any affidavit lines. On top of that, before they get to the push, he says she wouldn't agree to post anything negative - unless she believed it were true. Again, that's not supported by any affidavit lines.

      As we like to tell juries, you don't leave your common sense at the door. The Yale defenders in this thread are separating out single lines from the full context of the performance, and that's not the right way to evaluate what happened.

      Hostile witnesses have a place in mock trial. Cheating doesn't.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Gronksmash View Post

        It doesn't matter that the Sullivan and Anderson went first. The presentation of Sullivan and Anderson only worked because of the case theory Yale said they were going to present in the opening. That case theory was entirely based on invented facts that originated with Rivers wanting to give Jerry a "push." The trial was poisoned by Yale introducing an egregious material fact invention that they shouted about from the open til close.
        At the risk of defending Yale, I donít think thatís true. Watching the final round, the Sullivan was the only witness to cause the entire room to erupt in laughter. I imagine that witness was highest scored in the round.

        While it is true that Yale incorporated this theory throughout all of their performances, I donít think those incorporations truly changed the scores. An opening is before any facts come out. If you over promise in opening and under deliver in round, the opening score is not going to change. In my opinion, the consistent cross examination questions were not so dramatic or impactful from a performance aspect that those questions alone would have altered either score.

        I think the score impact literally comes down to Rivers and the closings.

        What I donít understand about AMTA is their head-in-the-sand attitude when it comes to Yale. Last year AMTA made a big statement with their sanctions. Based off a podcast I have heard, it seemed like Yale was subject to a CRC probe last year. If thatís true, Yale would have had to explain their reasoning why something isnít material to the CRC. Ms Bays on that podcast explained her personal thought process and logic behind case theories and material inventions. She explained that she operates under the assumption that everything in the affidavit/case packet is true and given that truth (why else would it be in the packet if it wasnít true) makes a case theory.

        Now admittedly I donít know if Yale was subject to a CRC probe, but if they were, and if they used the logic Ms. Bays explained on that podcast, why would AMTA continue to knowingly put lines into cases that could lead to situations like this? Specifically in this case, why would AMTA put in Rivers lines 89-90 or Sullivan lines 48-49 knowing that one of their most storied programs latches onto these types of lines and has (still speculation on my part) toed the line in a previous instance.

        Again, speculation, but I have to imagine that right now Yale is defending themselves in a CRC probe. Given what Ms. Bays has explained at least, I imagine Yale will cite those Rivers and Sullivan lines in their defense. If there was a prior probe into Yale and they did use that line of defense, the CRC should have done something about it at that time, issued an explanation why Yaleís interpretation is wrong, or at least instruct th case writers to avoid making any lines like that in the future.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Voir Dire View Post

          Rivers saying he gave Anderson a push is entirely consistent with his affidavit, specifically lines 56 through 59.

          We need to be clear. Attorneys arguing facts that aren't in the case is not improper invention. Attorneys arguing that a witness's testimony implies something other than what's in their affidavit is not improper invention. The only improper invention I saw that round was Rivers on cross, denying that he would have told Anderson not to make that specific post had he known about it. This answer was never referenced at any other point in trial, and there's no reason to believe it had any bearing on the outcome of the round.
          The thing is, the example with Bailey from last year is nearly exactly the same kind of situation, and AMTA responded to that situation by sanctioning a team. To draw comparisons, there was evidence in Bailey's that she was lying for her mom, but no evidence whatsoever that she was being forced by attorneys into giving false testimony. Likewise, there is evidence in this case that Rivers would want Anderson to make that post, but you are really stretching "reasonable inference" by stating that you can infer Rivers sent those men to the grocery store. And even if Rivers' cross lost points, the theory as a whole was supported by Rivers being called. Imagine the same exact trial, same openings and witnesses except, that Rivers isn't called. Instead, Yale takes Emerson or another swing. There is no way to draw a connection between those men in the grocery store and the Dairy people. Yale's entire defense weakens significantly because their theory is no longer supported by someone who can testify that they gave Anderson a "push" or that they knew that post was coming and that they wanted that post to happen. Just because the Rivers' score may have hurt Yale doesn't mean the presentation of the cross and how it relates to the theory doesn't help their case substantially more than if someone else was called.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by ImproperCharacter View Post
            Yale cheated. It's not the first time Yale has cheated. But it's probably the most egregious. And it's also on the biggest stage. There isn't really a question of whether Yale broke the rules. I think it's a question of what AMTA will do about it.

            There is an egregious material invention even before we get to the cross examination. In the context of their case, it's clear that Yale's Rivers was saying that he planted the people in the grocery store. Using the transcript someone else posted earlier, the Rivers direct went accordingly:

            Q: Yes, or no, in your contract, you asked Ms. Anderson to post something negative?
            A: Yes.
            Q: And sir, what was Ms. Andersoní's stance on posting something negative?
            A: She wouldn'ít do it Ö
            Q: Sir.
            A: Ö Unless she believed it was true.
            Q: So sir, we'íve all heard what Ms. Anderson posted, I have to ask, sir Ė did you do something to make that happen?
            Q: Sir?
            A: All we did was we gave her a push Ė we had to. We had to.

            What is the "push" Rivers was referring to? That has to mean something.The CRC has stated that it doesn't consider statements of invention in isolation. It looks at them in the context of other statements to determine their meaning. So in order to determine what that "push" was, look at other statements Yale made.

            It's not the contract because Rivers already stated that the contract wasn't enough. Rivers suggests that it's something that would cause Anderson to believe it to be true. In light of their case theory, it is obvious that Rivers is referring to planting the people in the grocery store. Yale's opening and closing made it clear that Rivers was referring to planting people in the store. In isolation, "push" is ambiguous. In the context of their case, it's not.

            And that's all before you get to the cross where the witness clearly recants the affidavit. The language of Rivers on that cross examination tracks very closely with the language of the Bailey described in the prior recanting sanction.



            What Yale did here, and has done in the past, doesn't show any real skill of advocacy. It shows some level of creativity to be sure. But other teams have those creative skills as well and choose not do those case theories because they believe them to be cheating. The difference between Yale and other teams in AMTA isn't Yale's skill or creativity. It's Yale's lack of integrity.
            Improper Character ably explains why Yale needs to be sanctioned for cheating. The next question is what should the Board do? It has a wide range of options, from probation to deducting points from ballots to suspending students on the program, or the program as a whole. But none of that is enough. Yale's sanction must include stripping away the championship at the very least.

            1. Yale's cheating constitutes one of the worst examples of egregious invention in the history of the rule because the invention affected the entire trial. Last year, a team was sanctioned for recanting an affidavit on a matter ancillary to case. In one direct, a witness recanted their affidavit, making it impossible for the opposing team to effectively cross the witness. But that team didn't promise in their opening that the witness would recant. They didn't tailor their directs and crosses knowing the invention was coming. But Yale did. They argued that Dairy set up the conversation. They tailored their crosses and their case in chief around the invention. They made the whole trial about it.

            2. Allowing the championship to stand teaches new teams that it's okay to cheat. Hundreds of people watched the livestream of the final round. They watched Yale cheat in front of God and everybody and half the Board to boot. All of those people saw Yale win the national championship after cheating. Yale's been to the final round 5 straight years, so the logical conclusion for these teams is to follow in the footsteps of success. If Yale can win by cheating, why can't we? And on top of that, AMTA films final rounds to sell to teams that want to watch them. Hundreds of teams across the country use them to teach new students what good mock trial looks like. When those new students watch a witness recant his affidavit, to them, that's what it takes to win.

            And this isn't a phantom fear. Members within the AMTA community are already treading down this path. One MTC post says "Happy that Yale won but will they get sanctioned? If not recanting the affidavit seems strong!" This is exactly the kind of logical connection that people make when they watch cheaters prosper. AMTA needs to stamp out this kind of thinking before it can take root. But that cannot happen if Yale is allowed to keep their title.

            3. Deducting points from River's score fails to address the problem. I've seen and heard a few people suggest that the appropriate sanction is to deduct some number of points from Rivers direct and/or cross to remedy the invention. The scope and severity of the invention explains why that doesn't suffice. As several people have pointed out, Yale's invention tainted the entire round. From the first word of their opening, Yale rested everything on an egregious improper invention. Limiting the sanction to one or two scores on each ballot fails to account for how widely the invention spread through the round. Even if deducting these points from each ballot is enough to swing the championship to Rhodes, it unfairly limits the sanction to one part, instead of addressing all the damage that the invention did.

            No other punishment short of vacating the title will serve either. If AMTA were merely to suspend Yale for a year or two, plenty of people would still think it's worth it, creating a perverse incentive for some people to cheat. There would little to deter a group of seniors from simply "paying the price" for cheating their way to a championship by passing the buck to the students next year. Simply put, if AMTA doesn't strip the championship away from Yale, the invention of fact rule has no teeth. Without severe enough consequences, all bets are off, and teams will continue to cheat for a competitive advantage.
            Last edited by Roger_Wilco; April 9th, 2019, 11:21 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gronksmash View Post
              As someone else said, the "push" must be looked at in context. Everyone watching that trial knew the "push" meant putting the two guys in the stores. The lines you mentioned in no way support the theory or fact that Rivers planted the two men in the store.
              Again, what the lawyers argue about the implications of testimony cannot be improper invention. If a witness's affidavit says he saw a chihuahua, the opener says you'll hear how he saw a Great Dane, and the witness testifies that he saw a dog, that's not improper invention. Even if the closer argues that all things considered, the dog was probably a Great Dane.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Voir Dire View Post
                Again, what the lawyers argue about the implications of testimony cannot be improper invention. If a witness's affidavit says he saw a chihuahua, the opener says you'll hear how he saw a Great Dane, and the witness testifies that he saw a dog, that's not improper invention. Even if the closer argues that all things considered, the dog was probably a Great Dane.
                No. This would be bad faith. In your example, no witness even hinted at the dog breed. It would be a violation of our sportmanship rules for the closer to make such an argument. In the real world, an attorney attempting to make such an argument, when he knew that the facts of his witness do not support his argument, would rightfully be subject to rebuke. In Midlands, our attorneys are still subject to the AMTA ethics rules.

                Comment


                • Oh for fucks' sake Roger_Wilco enough with the theatrics. I'm not a Yale fan by any means, but I think you may still be stuck in a 2011 conception of mock trial.

                  Yale's cheating constitutes one of the worst examples of egregious invention in the history of the rule because the invention affected the entire trial.


                  Just false. Yale did this exact theory, in this exact way, without calling Rivers in round one of the tournament and won by a combined 80 points. Having a theory that makes logical leaps is NOT an invention. An invention is based on what the witness actually says. Did they say something that wasn't contained within, or reasonably inferred from, their materials? That's an invention. The only invention here (and I agree there was one) was on cross, on an issue
                  ancillary to the theory.
                  You made the exact same point in both 1 and 3 - so I'll address it twice as well.
                  From the first word of their opening, Yale rested everything on an egregious improper invention.

                  This is again, not true. You clearly have no idea what happened in the other trials at the championship. The theory did not require invention.

                  Allowing the championship to stand teaches new teams that it's okay to cheat.
                  Putting aside the overdramatic language throughout your post, this is again false. If any team besides Yale tried to use a hostile witness to imply (but not state) certain facts, it would fall completely flat. Why? Because as much as people hate to admit it, teams try to push the limits all the time - it just doesn't work. 99 times out of 100, teams win by being competent and well-prepared. At the absolute margin (the very best of the very best), having an unexpected case theory helps. But please step off your slippery slope high horse.

                  And of course, to round it out, mock trial is a game played by college students. As you have been a member here since 2011, I assume you are no longer in college - maybe stop taking yourself, and this activity, so goddamn seriously.
                  Last edited by Panda; April 9th, 2019, 12:24 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Random View Post

                    At the risk of defending Yale, I donít think thatís true. Watching the final round, the Sullivan was the only witness to cause the entire room to erupt in laughter. I imagine that witness was highest scored in the round.

                    While it is true that Yale incorporated this theory throughout all of their performances, I donít think those incorporations truly changed the scores. An opening is before any facts come out. If you over promise in opening and under deliver in round, the opening score is not going to change. In my opinion, the consistent cross examination questions were not so dramatic or impactful from a performance aspect that those questions alone would have altered either score.

                    I think the score impact literally comes down to Rivers and the closings.

                    What I donít understand about AMTA is their head-in-the-sand attitude when it comes to Yale. Last year AMTA made a big statement with their sanctions. Based off a podcast I have heard, it seemed like Yale was subject to a CRC probe last year. If thatís true, Yale would have had to explain their reasoning why something isnít material to the CRC. Ms Bays on that podcast explained her personal thought process and logic behind case theories and material inventions. She explained that she operates under the assumption that everything in the affidavit/case packet is true and given that truth (why else would it be in the packet if it wasnít true) makes a case theory.

                    Now admittedly I donít know if Yale was subject to a CRC probe, but if they were, and if they used the logic Ms. Bays explained on that podcast, why would AMTA continue to knowingly put lines into cases that could lead to situations like this? Specifically in this case, why would AMTA put in Rivers lines 89-90 or Sullivan lines 48-49 knowing that one of their most storied programs latches onto these types of lines and has (still speculation on my part) toed the line in a previous instance.

                    Again, speculation, but I have to imagine that right now Yale is defending themselves in a CRC probe. Given what Ms. Bays has explained at least, I imagine Yale will cite those Rivers and Sullivan lines in their defense. If there was a prior probe into Yale and they did use that line of defense, the CRC should have done something about it at that time, issued an explanation why Yaleís interpretation is wrong, or at least instruct the case writers to avoid making any lines like that in the future.
                    I really agree with what Random said... there are a couple of weird lines in those affidavits. Did Yale go a lot further with them than anyone thought, probably further than the writers intended? yeah probably. But to me that isn't unfair invention. It is just creative. They just look at the case and go, why did they have that line? What can we do with that line? I am just confused by a lot of peoples anger about the Rivers cross. Rivers got impeached, he looked to some like he refuted his affidavit, Elliot even asked: "do you know what it means to perjure yourself". I think Elliot did a nice job trying to impeach the witness. He hopefully earned points, and I am confident Rivers lost points. That is how the trial is meant to go... you impeach witnesses that go outside their statements... that is what happened here. I am just confused by why in this case it is sanctionable.

                    I think the difference between this and the bailey instance, is that Bailey claimed she wasn't lying, it was her mom and the prosecutors who had lied... that is the problem. Any form of impeachment is answered with, well no, thats what I was told to write, not what actually happened. Additionally, it is easy to play a naive child who doesn't understand these implications. If a witness chooses to contradict their affidavit and they get impeached then that is that... they got impeached. Its not an improper invention or anything like that.

                    I think people are also taking some lines out of context from how Joseph Young-Perez meant them (or it least how I have interpreted what he meant):

                    He said repeatedly he is here to prevent the dairy farmers from getting sued... okay, you probably shouldn't have admitted to convincing her of this, but lets run with that concept for a moment. when Elliot read line 85: "If I had known what Anderson was going to say, I would've told her not to do it." Y-P responded: "of course I said that, I didn't want to get sued." This line about not wanting to get sued appears 3x in the Rivers affidavit. People have interpreted Y-P to mean, "I didn't actually mean that, I lied when I wrote my affidavit to avoid getting sued." But that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, since now he is refuting it, and it looks like he is gonna have a suit of his own in a few days. What makes more sense is the following interpretation: "Of course I would have told her not to say that. Saying that would get us sued. I just wanted her to say, don't drink Empowermilk, drink Dairy Farm, its way better and what all the athletes drink". This interpretation is what Bays was getting at with her objection to this impeachment. While I don't think that it should have been sustained, I think that her point stands, and unfortunately Y-P simply made a very broad statement that people misinterpreted. I don't think everyone's interpretation makes any sense though! It is inconsistent with what he is doing there today. I believe that it is perfectly reasonable to say that Rivers wanted her to post something negative. Rivers even sent some people to trash Empowermilk in front of her and they were hoping that when she heard it was a bad brand anyway, she would be willing to put them down, but unfortunately she took it too literally and posted the rumor she had heard.

                    Again, when you think about this in the context of him not wanting to get sued, why would he be perjuring himself? it makes more sense for him to mean that he didn't want her to say something untrue and simply wanted to convince her that Empowermilk was bad and Dairy Farms was good. I think Y-P could have done a far better job of explaining this, but as it stands, he should have gotten a bad cross score, not a sanction.
                    Last edited by QualityQuaffles; April 9th, 2019, 12:34 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Voir Dire View Post
                      Again, what the lawyers argue about the implications of testimony cannot be improper invention.
                      I am not saying that what the attorney's argued is improper invention. The invention is what the witness said, but the meaning of what the witness said is still interpreted in the context of the trial, including the statements of the attorneys. I have not heard anything convincing to suggest that when Rivers says "All we did was give her a push" the meaning of that at the time Rivers said it was anything other than plant people in the grocery store.

                      But even if you want to ignore the context given by the attorneys elsewhere in the trial, looking only at Rivers' direct testimony it's clear from the question and the witness's prior answer that "the push" at least means "something that caused Anderson to believe the post was true." There is not even support for that in the affidavit.



                      Originally posted by Voir Dire View Post
                      If a witness's affidavit says he saw a chihuahua, the opener says you'll hear how he saw a Great Dane, and the witness testifies that he saw a dog, that's not improper invention. Even if the closer argues that all things considered, the dog was probably a Great Dane.
                      Your dog analogy isn't comparable to what happened here because the witness didn't just say something similar to "I saw a dog." But, just for fun, I think I can play along and still show why what Yale did with the Rivers direct was an invention of fact:

                      Attorneys throughout trial say there was a Great Dane at the park. The witnesses affidavit says he saw a Chihuahua.

                      The direct examination of our hypothetical dog watcher goes as follows:

                      Q: Yes, or no, in the park, you saw a Chihuahua?
                      A: Yes.
                      Q: And sir, what was that the biggest dog you saw that day?
                      A: The Chihuahua was not....
                      Q: Sir.
                      A: … I saw something bigger.
                      Q: So sir, we've all heard that there were dogs in the park that day. I have to ask, sir – did you see a dog bigger than the Chihuahua?
                      Q: Sir?
                      A: All I know is that I saw a very, very big animal– I saw it. I saw it.


                      There is nothing in this hypothetical affidavit to support that the dog watcher saw an animal bigger than a Chihuahua, just like there is nothing in the Rivers affidavit to say that Rivers pushed Anderson to "believe [the post] was true."

                      Now this silly hypothetical testimony isn't a perfect analogy for what Yale did with Rivers on direct, but it shows that there can still be an invention of fact even if the witness doesn't explicitly say "I saw a Great Dane" or "I planted the people in the grocery store."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by geneva View Post

                        I don't want to distract too much from the Rivers recanting which I think is the bigger issue, but I'm going to point out that there is nothing in the Sullivan affidavit from which to infer that the men had or had not been there before, that the men did or did not buy anything, or that the men did or did not have carts. These were additional embellishments that Yale created to help sell the recanting that followed.
                        I don't know the case, so please someone correct me if I'm confused, but I personally find this to be hugely important even if Geneva doesn't. If we interpret the Rivers direct such that it isn't an invention and he isn't referring to planting the men, then aren't the invented facts about the men being suspicious the entire evidentiary basis of Yale's case theory? Even assuming that that you could reasonably infer that the witness didn't know the men, each of those other facts would be material. In a world where Rivers' "push" has nothing to do with convincing Anderson that the post was true, you need those facts to make these shoppers sufficiently suspicious to even potentially be spies. By itself, a grocery manager not recognizing every single customer is uninteresting.

                        Understandably, the cart and shopping inventions may seem minor, but if they are cumulatively necessary to your theory, I don't think you can say that only minor or unimportant rule violations have occurred. Similarly, you couldn't have D witnesses in a criminal case invent minor details about the killer that, when taken together, clearly describe someone who isn't the defendant. It's the cumulative effect that matters.
                        Last edited by OffOnCross; April 9th, 2019, 01:35 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Panda View Post
                          Yale did this exact theory, in this exact way, without calling Rivers in round one of the tournament and won by a combined 80 points. Having a theory that makes logical leaps is NOT an invention. An invention is based on what the witness actually says. Did they say something that wasn't contained within, or reasonably inferred from, their materials? That's an invention. The only invention here (and I agree there was one) was on cross, on an issue ancillary to the theory. ... You clearly have no idea what happened in the other trials at the championship. The theory did not require invention.
                          It speaks volumes that the thrust of your defense is "what about the rounds Yale didn't recant an affidavit??"

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Roger_Wilco View Post

                            It speaks volumes that the thrust of your defense is "what about the rounds Yale didn't recant an affidavit??"
                            You said this theory necessarily required and relied on invention. I am showing you that is misinformed and objectively false.

                            What this tells me is that Rivers' statements on cross (which certainly seem like recanting to me) were the witness fucking up, not a deliberate strategy to sabotage the sanctity of the blessed AMTA rules that we all know and love. I have seen tons of trials where a witness says something that is contradictory to their affidavit, but sticks to it anyway (as seems to have happened here) - that's not cheating, it's a mistake.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ImproperCharacter View Post
                              But even if you want to ignore the context given by the attorneys elsewhere in the trial, looking only at Rivers' direct testimony it's clear from the question and the witness's prior answer that "the push" at least means "something that caused Anderson to believe the post was true." There is not even support for that in the affidavit.
                              At the risk of getting too bogged down in specifics, I don't think that's clear at all. The actual question was "So sir, we've all heard what Ms. Anderson posted, I have to ask, sir, did you do something to make that happen?" It seemed pretty obvious to me at the time that "make that happen" was referring to "what Ms. Anderson posted." And the fact that Rivers encouraged Anderson to make posts helping him win the contract is stated clearly in his affidavit.

                              Furthermore, even if you did somehow interpret the question as asking if he caused Anderson to believe Almond Power had lead, the question "did you do X?" with the answer "all I did was Y" certainly doesn't assert that Y is a form of X. If the question is "did you see a Great Dane?" and the answer is "all I saw was this dog running by", the witness isn't claiming that the dog was a Great Dane. It doesn't rule it out, the lawyers might argue about what it suggests, but the witness isn't contradicting his affidavit or inventing any facts.
                              ​​​​​
                              Originally posted by OffOnCross View Post

                              I don't know the case, so please someone correct me if I'm confused, but I personally find this to be hugely important even if Geneva doesn't. If we interpret the Rivers direct such that it isn't an invention and he isn't referring to planting the men, then aren't the invented facts about the men being suspicious the entire evidentiary basis of Yale's case theory? Even assuming that that you could reasonably infer that the witness didn't know the men, each of those other facts would be material. In a world where Rivers' "push" has nothing to do with convincing Anderson that the post was true, you need those facts to make these shoppers sufficiently suspicious to even potentially be spies. By itself, a grocery manager not recognizing every single customer is uninteresting.
                              This is a fair point.

                              I think that when a witness is told to include everything they remember about certain events, and they never mention seeing something in their affidavit, it can in some cases be reasonable to infer that they didn't see it. Depends on the specific fact in question. For instance, I hope you'd agree that it would be reasonable for Sullivan to say that he never saw the men stab anyone in the aisle, even though that's not in his statement, because if he did he would have mentioned it. On the flip side, it would clearly be unreasonable to say he never saw them wearing any clothes, because that's such an automatic assumption that he needs to explicitly mention every time it didn't happen.

                              It's unclear where exactly "didn't see them buy anything" and "didn't see them get carts" fall on that scale. It seems relevant that he did specifically say when Anderson "went to pick up some groceries" and "came to check out," but doesn't have anything comparable for the two men. At any rate, the Sullivan lines don't seem any more unreasonable than what we see in most rounds of mock trial, when witnesses fill in the blanks in their statements with simple inferences that fit their case. What stands out about the contradiction on Rivers cross was how blatant it was and how firmly he stuck to it after impeachment.
                              Last edited by Voir Dire; April 9th, 2019, 02:52 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Voir Dire View Post

                                Furthermore, even if you did somehow interpret the question as asking if he caused Anderson to believe Almond Power had lead, the question "did you do X?" with the answer "all I did was Y" certainly doesn't assert that Y is a form of X. If the question is "did you see a Great Dane?" and the answer is "all I saw was this dog running by", the witness isn't claiming that the dog was a Great Dane. It doesn't rule it out, the lawyers might argue about what it suggests, but the witness isn't contradicting his affidavit or inventing any facts.
                                "Mr. Smith, all day long we've heard the victim got beat up by someone. I have to ask, did you hurt the victim?"

                                "All I did was defend myself."

                                I think this is a better analogy for what happened than your dog analogy. Everyone in the room understands what the witness is saying.



                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X