When Simon and Garfunkle wrote “listen to the sound of silence” they were not urging a principle applicable to hearsay analysis. But the Michigan Supreme Court took that notion to heart in a recent decision that ‘read between the lines’ and found that words never mentioned in court, but inferable from context, violate not only
As we approach the June 27 debate between President Biden and presumptive nominee Trump, much advice has been forthcoming as to how Mr. Biden should proceed. Written without benefit of polling data or focus groups, the below column makes suggestions based on persuasion techniques. To prevail in Thursday’s debate and then in the election,
Lay opinion testimony is tolerated because, frankly, it is hard to find the line between fact and opinion (“she is tall,” “they appeared drunk,” “the car was way over the speed limit”) and because lay witnesses should be comfortable speaking in normal, conversational, easily-understood terms. To ensure there is a foundation for the opinion rather
When a prospective juror says “I believe homosexuality is a sin” just like stealing, may that person be the “fair and impartial” juror? In a case brought by a lesbian prison guard whose claim is harassment on the job? The default answer should be “no.” Yet according to Justice Samuel Alito the answer is presumptively
Slow the video down It moves too fast But watch out it makes intent really last Feelin’ groovy (with apologies to Simon and Garfunkle) The proliferation of video evidence- body cameras, store security footage, ring cameras, and the ubiquitous hand-held cellphone – can’t be questioned. The use of video ranges from the high-profile cases, all
The report announcing that no criminal charges would be brought against Joseph Biden for mishandling classified materials brought an unsurprising response from Donald Trump – this was “selective prosecution.” As he stated in a speech to the NRA, “It was just announced that Joe Biden’s Department of Injustice will bring zero charges against crooked Joe
Pennsylvania law, as does federal, permits a person accused of a crime to ‘defend’ in part by proving their ‘good’ character, limited to the pertinent trait. If the crime is robbery or assault, the defense is that the accused is non-violent; and if the crime charged is forgery or theft, that the person is
We all know the admonition from Miranda v. Arizona – anything you say may be used against you. The question lawyers need to ponder – and adversaries need to pounce upon – is whether that same admonition applies to what lawyers say in their openings and closings, with the added concern that the warning will
In one iteration of his “Ten Commandments” lecture on cross-examination, the famed advocacy teacher Irving Younger posited that ‘less is more.’ When showing a witness’ bias, you need not call them out as a liar; instead, simply argue in closing “and the witness, who testified for the defendant – it’s their mother.” According to Younger,
Criminal case investigations often start with Locard’s “exchange principle” – “It is impossible for a criminal to act, especially considering the intensity of a crime, without leaving traces of this presence.” As otherwise described, “[t]his theory states that, whenever two objects come into contact, an exchange of materials occurs between them.” Mistek et al, ,