Really really loved the cross-exam from Mitchell Epner. You could play it for a trial practice class as an example of what to do: leading questions, one fact per question, nicely organized, drawing out useful facts, not arguing with the witness or trying to get the witness to agree with your point. It's unflashy but hard to do well, and this was *chef's kiss*
Not sure where we ask questions for this week's episode, so if I'm doing it wrong, feel free to correct me as harshly as necessary.
But regarding the E. Jean Carroll verdict, how could the jury find Trump not liable for rape but liable for sexual abuse? I can guess about the elements, I suppose, but is there something I'm missing about why this is a plausible verdict, factually? I'm not familiar with New York law and couldn't find the jury instructions after a brief search. Great show last time, though!
Were I the ADA, I’d dispose of Mitch’s “improved” cross-x by asking Ms. Carroll on redirect whether Roger Ailes had, in fact, raped her? I would ask if her if she would allege rape that hadn’t happened?
And I would suggest in closing that the implication that creative writers cannot be rape is offensive.
Technical question/suggestion: Since subscribers get a separate (secure? secret?) feed to the hoi polloi, can our feed please have a shortened versions of the podcasts that skip that subscription sales pitches?
So, with Clarence Thomas, we now have the trips, the house, his son's tuition, and money secretly funneled to Ginni Thomas by Leo. Is this starting to get to the point where this looks corrupt to you?
I’m feeling weak kneed and unable to start the podcast as I flashback to Professor Wright’s permanent snarl that got worse as we moved to RAP. He promised we would never understand like he did but could pass a bar question from someone who would know it no better than we would.
I'm a little surprised they went with Joe Tacopina to do the cross examination. I would think someone who fits into the "thumb-headed henchman" mold would not be your best option for cross examining an alleged rape victim.
Interesting to hear how lawyer preparation and approach to witness questioning is key to dismantling or making a case, which makes sense. I'm curious, everyone talks about how Trump would be a disaster on the witness stand since he is basically a walking random number generator of off the wall thoughts, but for most witnesses, how much prep is done or is reasonable before their testimony begins to sound stilted or rehearsed?
A Detailed Explanation of the Rule Against Perpetuities
in which we learn how many times ken can say “vitiate” in one episode
False advertising! This actually is not a very detailed explanation of the rule of perpetuities
Really really loved the cross-exam from Mitchell Epner. You could play it for a trial practice class as an example of what to do: leading questions, one fact per question, nicely organized, drawing out useful facts, not arguing with the witness or trying to get the witness to agree with your point. It's unflashy but hard to do well, and this was *chef's kiss*
Not sure where we ask questions for this week's episode, so if I'm doing it wrong, feel free to correct me as harshly as necessary.
But regarding the E. Jean Carroll verdict, how could the jury find Trump not liable for rape but liable for sexual abuse? I can guess about the elements, I suppose, but is there something I'm missing about why this is a plausible verdict, factually? I'm not familiar with New York law and couldn't find the jury instructions after a brief search. Great show last time, though!
always here for any podcast subtitled "You Asked For It"
Great work as usual.
I have to say that I really appreciated you dropping this ep right before my wife told me to go mow the lawn.
Excellent show again.
Many times I listen while on a walk.
I have to admit I feel awkward after busting out laughing from your asides to the storyline while in a crowd waiting to cross a street.
But the content you offer makes my brief discomfort worthwhile.
WE FINALLY PERP WALKED KEN
Were I the ADA, I’d dispose of Mitch’s “improved” cross-x by asking Ms. Carroll on redirect whether Roger Ailes had, in fact, raped her? I would ask if her if she would allege rape that hadn’t happened?
And I would suggest in closing that the implication that creative writers cannot be rape is offensive.
Technical question/suggestion: Since subscribers get a separate (secure? secret?) feed to the hoi polloi, can our feed please have a shortened versions of the podcasts that skip that subscription sales pitches?
The title itself has me so excited that I haven't hit play yet. Just savoring it
So, with Clarence Thomas, we now have the trips, the house, his son's tuition, and money secretly funneled to Ginni Thomas by Leo. Is this starting to get to the point where this looks corrupt to you?
Did anyone else find that they have an with an irresistible curiosity about Ken’s office? I wanted Josh to paint a picture with his words.
I’m feeling weak kneed and unable to start the podcast as I flashback to Professor Wright’s permanent snarl that got worse as we moved to RAP. He promised we would never understand like he did but could pass a bar question from someone who would know it no better than we would.
I'm a little surprised they went with Joe Tacopina to do the cross examination. I would think someone who fits into the "thumb-headed henchman" mold would not be your best option for cross examining an alleged rape victim.
Interesting to hear how lawyer preparation and approach to witness questioning is key to dismantling or making a case, which makes sense. I'm curious, everyone talks about how Trump would be a disaster on the witness stand since he is basically a walking random number generator of off the wall thoughts, but for most witnesses, how much prep is done or is reasonable before their testimony begins to sound stilted or rehearsed?