POP QUIZ! You're representing Jim in a jury trial involving a car wreck. The other party's witness, named Michael, is testifying on direct examination and says, "Dwight told me that he thinks Jim was speeding while driving because apparently Jim was trying to beat Dwight to a potential client." What all should you do in this situation and why?
The lawyer objecting to his own question was pretty hilarious. Although... I'm still confused, because wasn't he objecting to the ANSWER that was given, as hearsay?
When you’re in mock trial and all you know how to do is be a witness but your teacher decides to make you an attorney this year and you have three months to learn all the objects and how to Direct and cross a witness
Man i don't know why I'm here I'm an ace attorney fan and this feels so sick hahahah i want to be on a mock trial although I don't want to be an attorney
I understood most objections from simply watching the Johnny Depp Amber Heard trials BUT I simply don't understand why it's hearsay if somebody literally repeats what THEY themselves said. Just doesn't make sense to me
I am a paralegal student. I had a mock trial with a real judge. I was responsible for cross examination. I watched this video and I rocked it! Thank you so much for sharing this. It's a great video. I'm sure your paid course is good. Thank you again. I really lean from your videos
Thank you so much! I'm familiar with mock trial, but I've only been a witness before. This has been a major help in preparing me to be an attorney for the first time.
I love how all the objections are centered around the fact that the Jury are a bunch of easy to manipulate individuals who can't think for themselves. I only wonder why can't the Judicial system include professional Jury members who have experience in the field in question (Homicide/Drug Dealing/Forgery... etc) depending on what are the charges, why isn't that a thing ??
Because then it wouldn’t be fair, especially if those “professional jurors”, develop a bias. I’d rather take my chance at a random selection of noob jurors than ones who might be already be coming in with a made-up mind from previous experiences.
Im playing the ace attorney trilogy and now I have an ambition to study law, it probably morphed my idea of being in a court room, what's your opinion?
@@tawdryhepburn4686 i made this comment for myself, listing only the ones I found pertinent to my mock trial the coming week. Btw I was the prosecuting attorney and we won the trial
Good ass video thanks. Looked at the views excepting to find hundreds of thousands based on the fact it was so professional and edited well, but only to see it has a few hundred. Great video really
Ive spent the the last 5 years an over 100k in court with my X as shes tired to get custody of our now 8 year old daughter, her new boyfriend has way more $ than me to , but after 5 years an 4 shity lawyers your videos an me as my childs lawyer an by the way im not an attorney, im just not the pos drug addict an abusive parent , that constantly gets caught in lies an disobeys every state guideline an court order ! Your awsome man an ive watched an read so much over the years an honesty i feel like you have helped me more than 4 lawyers an over 100k spent ! How much do i owe you bro ? LoL cause your worth every dime !
I've seen about a handful of your videos and they're all great. You're very clear and the way you lay out the information is easy to follow and digest. You sound like a very competent lawyer. If I may make one recommendation... dress more like an attorney. As any sales person worth his commission check will tell you, potential clients judge you in the first couple of seconds based almost exclusively on your appearance. It's not about fairness; it's just the nature of the beast. I recommend levelling up your street cred with a wardrobe in keeping with how you already present yourself: a competent lawyer! I hope you take that as the constructive feedback it is intended to be, and not a snobby attack on your fashion choices. Either way, keep up the content, it's priceless.
I really appreciate the kind words and constructive feedback! When it comes to recording videos these days, I make sure that I have the least resistance as possible. The microphone, camera, tripod, and lights are never moved so I can just fire everything up and start recording in minutes. I find that if there's a lot of set up time, then that resistance can dissuade me from actually recording (especially because I don't always have a lot of free time to record the video). Dressing up for a video has a similar effect. It's just so much easier to turn everything on and start recording with what I was already wearing.
Make sure to get a ruling .... many judges loathe judging “clear it up counselor” is not a ruling .... the elephant in the room is going to be making a bill of review when you know you are right .... with the quality of this content, I would love to see your content: let’s say in an assault case the judge does not lot you use a video the victim did at the hospital that contradicts the visible injuries reported and/or how the injury happened ...
You're exactly right! Making sure that you get a ruling from the Judge helps keep the record clean. And what you're referring to is what's called (at least in my jurisdiction) an "offer of proof." That's definitely something I should make a video about at some point! Thanks for the feedback and input!
I’m representing myself in an administrative appeals case w NH dept health and human services. I’m hoping to bring down the non profit agency taking care of my sister and the dept of HHS Lol. I have so much proof I’ve been completely ignored and the attorney generals office has serious concerns about what’s been allowed. I’m psyched to go in and use my law and order knowledge. I’ve been studying for 6 months on tortes and parental alienation and the dsm book. I’m calling witnesses etc. fingers crossed!
I'm also here because of the Depp v Heard trial, to boost my understanding. Thanks for the good explanations, I don't believe I knew the last one. #JusticeForJohnnyDepp
The jury can safely disregard with reprimand to the presiding judge for issuing any such order as they are in charge of the proceedings.The idea of the truth emerging from argument refereed from the neutral bench is flawed, but more or less what the founders put in place. These has been replaced over the years by the ABA. If any of it is due process why would it ever be necessary to falsify felony transcripts into fake history? These official records should always be accurate accounts of what happened.Why not? What is the meaning of this practice? No the members of the American Bar Association haven't plausible denial. I...can... prove it.
arent we all here now because of the amber heard and johnny depp trial, hearing those words when i have no idea about any single thing in this law field but i curious to know the meaning
I really liked your video but I was a little confused as to the "Argumentative" objection. As I understand it, "argumentative" is when the lawyer tries to argue their case during questioning, i.e. to get the witness to agree to theories or conclusions rather than to provide facts. Argumentative questions would be ones like "So the defendant was already setting up his alibi when he said he was going to be out of town, correct?" or "A positive identification of a rapist who used tape on locks would weaken your assertion that he entered through the laundry room window, wouldn't it?" In contrast, a question such as "What made you change your mind (as to the identity of the intruder), was it the testimony that the intruder used tape on locks instead of crawling through open windows?" would be more along the lines of badgering or harassment. Theories should be saved for the closing argument.
Glad you like the video! The argumentative objection is hard to define because it's very dependent on what is happening in the moment. Objecting to questions that ask for legal conclusions typically don't fall under Argumentative (check out FRE 701 and 702). Instead, Argumentative is usually when the cross examiner goes from asking questions to simply arguing a point with the witness in an effort to get the witness to say exactly what the cross examiner wants. But, cross examination is sort of an argument itself because you want to ask leading questions that tell the story you want to tell during closing (or at least part of it). As such, Argumentative is something you have to determine in the moment because it focuses less on the question itself and more of the tone/intent of the question or statement.
In the Karen-Read-trial the Judge did allow only to object, not to explain why - I found this was so difficult for the jury not to know why there was an objection. Sorry she asked the prosecutor, if he wants to object, when he didn't in the first place - is this allowed?
Additional exemption to leading questions is direct examination of adversarial witnesses (rule 611) so if youre questioning someone whom is aligned with your opposition on direct or even someone whom youve valid and credible reason has been tampered with (be sure you can articulate this to the judge) you can request the witness be considered hostile and from there youll be able to handle the line of questioning with "kid gloves" via leading questions to a reasonable degree
How do you object if you are representing yourself and the judge AND the prosecutor are abusing their oath of office? Can you imagine being in a courtroom facing lies on top of lies on top of lies?
99% of the time it'll be used during cross examination, however, there may be a situation when you can try it during direct. If someone keeps asking the same open-ended question during direct, you may want to also make a 403 objection as well since that deals with not wasting the court's time.
The objection beyond the scope of the trial just means that the question asked or the answer given was not within what the trial was trying to determine. Does that help? :)
Really like the delivery of the video. Also coming from the Johnny Depp vs AmberTurd. I'd say would be cool to see your reaction to the court case as well.
Looks like you were sent the emails yesterday at 1:59 PM and 2:12 PM (central time). You may need to check your spam folder or Promotions folder. And happy to help!
"So I was walking down the street.. "OBJECTION!" .... On my way home from work.."OBJECTION!" ... I was about 20 feet from my house.."OBJECTION!" Almost as if someone dont want the truth out!
Objection! The autopsy report has been updated. Objection! You are not a clown, you are the entire circus. Objection! Guilty! Objection! That was .. objectionable! Objection! Darker and more bitter than the depths of hell ... Coffee Did I get them all? They can speak for themselves, they know who they are.
WHAT IF--- a party wants to admit a "mortgage" that is supposed to be a lien on property, BUT the "mortgagor" had no title, and therefore the mortgage is void? ..we cannot just assume the "mortgagor" had clear title to the property, because then we would just have people recording mortgages on property that they had no title to...florida is a hot spot..
During Direct, my witness explains a relevant conversation they had with another witness. Could a hearsay objection become sustained by opposing counsel?
you don’t need to justify the leading objection. you just say “leading” if the judge needs clarification about why you think it’s leading (if you are right they should not because it will be pretty obvious) the judge will ask for more.
