re: Trial lawyers of the OT

quote:

---

Edit: Also if you are the defense attorney, why wouldn’t you object all the time and how do you deal with people who are idiots?

---

Just for general edumacation: we object when appropriate *and* necessary. You can’t just object to everything; the code of evidence exists for a reason. The judge can, and will, hold you in contempt for making frivolous objections just to frick with opposing counsel. And even if it is objectionable, we will generally let inconsequential shite slide, like minor leading questions, unimportant hearsay, etc. Jurors *hate* objections, from both sides. They feel like the objecting party is trying to hide something important from them, even if it’s concerning minor crap no one should care about.

Just for general edumacation: we object when appropriate *and* necessary. You can’t just object to everything; the code of evidence exists for a reason. The judge can, and will, hold you in contempt for making frivolous objections just to frick with opposing counsel. And even if it is objectionable, we will generally let inconsequential shite slide, like minor leading questions, unimportant hearsay, etc. Jurors *hate* objections, from both sides. They feel like the objecting party is trying to hide something important from them.

quote:

---

Just for general edumacation: we object when appropriate *and* necessary. You can’t just object to everything; the code of evidence exists for a reason. The judge can, and will, hold you in contempt for making frivolous objections just to frick with opposing counsel. And even if it is objectionable, we will generally let inconsequential shite slide, like minor leading questions, unimportant hearsay, etc. Jurors *hate* objections, from both sides. They feel like the objecting party is trying to hide something important from them.

---

Thank you

Dude tell me you aren't on the jury

quote:

---

Im not

---

Based on the fact that you claimed to already know the facts, I figured it was unlikely. Only reason I re-engaged

Feel free to fire away anything else you’re curious about. For being the damned cornerstone of western civilization, the average person knows frick all nothing about the legal system, particularly the criminal justice system.

quote:

---

Incessantly. Lay witnesses are unpredictable on the best of days, even if well prepped. An unprepared witness is like playing Russian roulette. It comes down to how many times you have to pull the trigger.

---

It also occurred to me today that if this guy was found not guilty, whats to keep him from coming after the witnesses that testified against him? I finally understand why people don't say anything to cops.

edit: Do any of you ever shake your head and say why am I wasting my time on earth listening to this?

quote:

---

edit: Do any of you ever shake your head and say why am I wasting my time on earth listening to this?

---

I’m not certain I understand your question, but assuming I do, the answer is yes, the average person is an idiot

quote:

---

Just for general edumacation: we object when appropriate *and* necessary. You can’t just object to everything; the code of evidence exists for a reason. The judge can, and will, hold you in contempt for making frivolous objections just to frick with opposing counsel. And even if it is objectionable, we will generally let inconsequential shite slide, like minor leading questions, unimportant hearsay, etc. Jurors *hate* objections, from both sides. They feel like the objecting party is trying to hide something important from them, even if it’s concerning minor crap no one should care about.

---

Is this a common strategy???...OJ lawyers objected to everything... seems like a good idea if you fighting for your client’s life...could anything be considered inconsequential???

quote:

---

Is this a common strategy???...OJ lawyers objected to everything... seems like a good idea if you fighting for your client’s life...could anything be considered inconsequential???

---

Unless you’re an attorney, you’re likely in no position to say whether they “objected to everything”, because you have no idea what is actually objectionable.

I’m not talking about letting in evidence; I’m talking about letting minor, ticky tack procedural crap slide. Fundamental difference.

quote:

---

Is your copy of black's law dictionary still a doorstop?

---

Collecting dust on a lovely book case

quote:

---

Can policemen arrest me if I don't agree to the social contract?

---

Unfortunately :/