Sadly, law lures alot of egotistical people, not enough people that are in it for doing the right thing. If only people would always do the right thing first, we could avoid these kinds of situations.
It's true, especially if you have a witness on cross-examination ... unless you really need to do so, you shouldn't unnecessarily ask open-ended questions. Leading questions are a sword, yo!
1. Hearsay objection: If a statement made by a witness or party is being offered as evidence, and that statement is being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted, an objection can be raised on the grounds of hearsay. Hearsay is generally not admissible in court, unless it falls under one of the recognized exceptions. 2. Relevance objection: Evidence must be relevant to the case at hand in order to be admissible. If a party offers evidence that is not relevant to the issues being litigated, the opposing party can object on the grounds of relevance. 3. Unfair prejudice objection: Evidence that is highly prejudicial and has the potential to unduly influence the jury's decision can be objected to on the grounds of unfair prejudice. The objection is based on the belief that the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by its potential to unfairly bias the jury. 4. Character evidence objection: Generally, evidence of a person's character or character traits is not admissible to prove that the person acted in conformity with that character on a particular occasion. Therefore, objections can be raised if a party attempts to introduce evidence of a person's character to show that they acted in a certain way. 5. Authentication objection: Before a piece of evidence can be admitted, it must be properly authenticated. This means that the party offering the evidence must provide sufficient proof that it is what it purports to be. If the authentication of a piece of evidence is challenged, an objection can be raised. 6. Privilege objection: Certain communications are protected by privilege, which means they cannot be disclosed or used as evidence in court. If a party attempts to introduce evidence that is protected by privilege, the opposing party can object on the grounds of privilege. 7. Best evidence rule objection: The best evidence rule requires that the original or best available evidence be presented in court. If a party attempts to introduce secondary evidence when the original is available, an objection can be raised based on the best evidence rule. 8. Lack of foundation objection: Before evidence can be admitted, the party offering it must establish a proper foundation. This means they must provide enough evidence to show that the evidence is reliable and trustworthy. If a party fails to lay a proper foundation, an objection can be raised based on lack of foundation. 9. Opinion objection: Lay witnesses generally cannot offer opinions or conclusions in their testimony. They are limited to testifying about what they personally observed or experienced. If a lay witness attempts to offer an opinion, an objection can be raised on the grounds that it is not proper opinion testimony. 10. Improper expert testimony objection: Expert witnesses are allowed to offer opinions based on their specialized knowledge and experience. However, their opinions must be based on reliable principles and methods. If an expert witness attempts to offer an opinion that is not based on reliable principles or methods, an objection can be raised.
I'm in the legal profession. If they can't bar you from getting a license to practice law, the American bar association will blow a minor complaint out of proportion. They are of course very selective in who they enforce legal ethics against. A lot of judges enforce this status quo.
The testimony on what he knew and whether he was upset or not wasn't fatal to the case. Certainly goes to the credibility or the witness, who claimed to care so much about the land and yet had no idea of the illegal dumping. Plaintiffs still got something out of the case, and EPA nailed WR Grace and Beatrice afterwards. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Civil_Action
This should be highlighted in film classes to show how cinematographers paint with light. RIP Conrad Hall. A well-deserved Oscar nomination.
This is a great great movie. Highly recommend to anyone.
Roger Ebert said it best: this movie is like John Grisham for grown-ups.
Never ask a witness why, unless you already know the answer
I have violated that rule one or two times. They were calculated gambles and they paid off.
Never ask any question you don’t already know the answer to.
@@tommym321I assume they worked because you had made sure, in your previous questioning, to block off the escape routes for the Why question?
@@wilverbal sort of. It’s because I knew whatever answer they gave to the question would be stupid.
Dan Hedaya (the witness) is an exceptional character actor and did a great job in this film.
Watch this and him in Blood Simple and it's like an acting class.
Sadly, law lures alot of egotistical people, not enough people that are in it for doing the right thing. If only people would always do the right thing first, we could avoid these kinds of situations.
It's true, especially if you have a witness on cross-examination
... unless you really need to do so, you shouldn't unnecessarily ask open-ended questions. Leading questions are a sword, yo!
1. Hearsay objection: If a statement made by a witness or party is being offered as evidence, and that statement is being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted, an objection can be raised on the grounds of hearsay. Hearsay is generally not admissible in court, unless it falls under one of the recognized exceptions.
2. Relevance objection: Evidence must be relevant to the case at hand in order to be admissible. If a party offers evidence that is not relevant to the issues being litigated, the opposing party can object on the grounds of relevance.
3. Unfair prejudice objection: Evidence that is highly prejudicial and has the potential to unduly influence the jury's decision can be objected to on the grounds of unfair prejudice. The objection is based on the belief that the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by its potential to unfairly bias the jury.
4. Character evidence objection: Generally, evidence of a person's character or character traits is not admissible to prove that the person acted in conformity with that character on a particular occasion. Therefore, objections can be raised if a party attempts to introduce evidence of a person's character to show that they acted in a certain way.
5. Authentication objection: Before a piece of evidence can be admitted, it must be properly authenticated. This means that the party offering the evidence must provide sufficient proof that it is what it purports to be. If the authentication of a piece of evidence is challenged, an objection can be raised.
6. Privilege objection: Certain communications are protected by privilege, which means they cannot be disclosed or used as evidence in court. If a party attempts to introduce evidence that is protected by privilege, the opposing party can object on the grounds of privilege.
7. Best evidence rule objection: The best evidence rule requires that the original or best available evidence be presented in court. If a party attempts to introduce secondary evidence when the original is available, an objection can be raised based on the best evidence rule.
8. Lack of foundation objection: Before evidence can be admitted, the party offering it must establish a proper foundation. This means they must provide enough evidence to show that the evidence is reliable and trustworthy. If a party fails to lay a proper foundation, an objection can be raised based on lack of foundation.
9. Opinion objection: Lay witnesses generally cannot offer opinions or conclusions in their testimony. They are limited to testifying about what they personally observed or experienced. If a lay witness attempts to offer an opinion, an objection can be raised on the grounds that it is not proper opinion testimony.
10. Improper expert testimony objection: Expert witnesses are allowed to offer opinions based on their specialized knowledge and experience. However, their opinions must be based on reliable principles and methods. If an expert witness attempts to offer an opinion that is not based on reliable principles or methods, an objection can be raised.
Would you like a glass of water? - we'll have it tapped in from Camp Lejeune
1:12 "Good morning Mr. Reilly. Would you care for a glass of water?"
(I won't explain, you have to see the movie to get it.)
I can barely hear it. Is it just me or was it uploaded with the volume turned down extremely low?
"Indigent wild life" lolll
Maybe they were poor and needed work. 😂
@@lpr5269 Yes animal unemployment is a serious issue. 😏
I'm in the legal profession. If they can't bar you from getting a license to practice law, the American bar association will blow a minor complaint out of proportion. They are of course very selective in who they enforce legal ethics against. A lot of judges enforce this status quo.
I'm in the legal profession too. It's the state bar, not the bar association, that investigates and goes after lawyers for alleged ethical violations.
Epic lawyer fail. Seriously.
objection
Action
environmentalism trial
An interesting tidbit about this case. All of the lawyers in this case had a Jewish background.
Did this actually happen? Really idiotic on the part of counsel. You never let the witness control the narrative.
The testimony on what he knew and whether he was upset or not wasn't fatal to the case. Certainly goes to the credibility or the witness, who claimed to care so much about the land and yet had no idea of the illegal dumping. Plaintiffs still got something out of the case, and EPA nailed WR Grace and Beatrice afterwards.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Civil_Action