{"id":1118,"date":"2016-03-31T08:41:27","date_gmt":"2016-03-31T12:41:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/?p=1118"},"modified":"2021-12-16T14:58:50","modified_gmt":"2021-12-16T14:58:50","slug":"taking-the-sting-out-using-direct-examination-to-anticipate-and-undercut-attacks-on-your-witness","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2016\/03\/31\/taking-the-sting-out-using-direct-examination-to-anticipate-and-undercut-attacks-on-your-witness\/","title":{"rendered":"Taking the Sting Out: Using Direct Examination to Anticipate and Undercut Attacks on Your Witness"},"content":{"rendered":"

Sadly, it can be the rare witness who does not come with some<\/em> baggage \u2013 a criminal conviction, a potential bias, an inconsistent statement, or some other challenge to her\/his credibility. So, the proponent of that witness has to make a choice \u2013 bring it out first, or simply wait for the sting of cross-examination. The suggestion of this article is to do the former, a technique supported by law and, as importantly, by the tenets of solid advocacy.<\/p>\n

As litigators, we are told emphatically that a witness\u2019 credibility may not be bolstered before it is attacked. But this is wrong in two regards \u2013 the limitation is actually as to bolstering with character for truthfulness<\/em>, which may occur only after an averment of the witness having an untruthful character; and it is inapposite when the form of bolstering has the appearance of attacking<\/em> one\u2019s own witness. Abundant caselaw makes this point.<\/p>\n

As explained by the First Circuit nearly thirty years ago, “[t]he prosecution, having called a witness, may then ‘take the wind out of the sails’ of the defense by questions eliciting possible bases for impeachment.” United States v. Frappier, 807 F.2d 257, 259 (1st Cir. 1986). This remains accepted as basic evidence law. See also<\/em>, United States v. Flemmi, 402 F.3d 79, 88-89 (1st Cir. Mass. 2005); Evans v. State, 2014 Nev. Unpub. LEXIS 492, *12, 2014 WL 1270606 (Nev. 2014) (\u201cEither party is permitted to preemptively impeach its own witness\u201d). As the Nevada Court elaborated,<\/p>\n

In the present case, the State began questioning Thomas by asking if he had any prior felony convictions. Thomas later testified that he had pleaded guilty to burglary for his role in the forged check-cashing scheme. The State asked Thomas if he had received any leniency in exchange for his testimony, which Thomas testified that he had not. To the extent that Evans could have brought up Thomas’s plea in order to demonstrate bias, the State appropriately impeached its own witness to preemptively dispel the obvious issue of bias that could have been raised on cross-examination.<\/p>\n

The most commonly cited legal foundation for this preemptive attack is Federal Rule of Evidence 607, which permits any party to impeach a witness, even its own. Reliance on this Rule is \u2018bizarre\u2019 as the impeachment is in form only, and is not meant to attack but to protect (and perhaps enhance) credibility. But having no other apparent source in the Rules \u2013 with the possible exception of Rule 611, which allows a judge to control the method and order of witness examination to \u201cmake those procedures effective for determining the truth[]\u201d \u2013 607 has sufficed to justify this approach when challenged on appeal.<\/p>\n

And the advocacy theory supporting this technique? As described by Thomas Mauet, because \u201cthe opposing side has the opportunity to bring out all negative information\u2026the better approach is to anticipate [this\u2026] and incorporate it into the direct\u2026\u201d Mauet, TRIALS, 2nd<\/sup> Edition, 143 (Aspen 2009). Stephen Lubet concurs as long as the witness\u2019 proponent is \u201csure that the information is known to the other side and will be admissible\u2026\u201d Lubet, MODERN TRIAL ADVOCACY, 3rd<\/sup> Edition, 53 (NITA, 2010).<\/p>\n

So, how and when does an advocate \u2018take the sting out?\u2019 First, consider a definition of this idiom, which is \u201cto make something that is unpleasant a little less unpleasant.\u201d If that is the best to be achieved, it must be done neither at the beginning or the end of direct examination, when primacy and recency principles dictate that this is what will be remembered most and when the factfinder has yet to accept the witness as a [potentially] trustworthy source of information. Instead, it should be done deftly, but candidly, somewhere in the middle with just enough discussion to acknowledge the flaw and mitigate its harm.<\/p>\n

Q: Ms. Witness, you\u2019ve told us about the accident and how the cars drove that night. The jury, of course, is also entitled to know about your past. Were you convicted of a crime three years ago?<\/em><\/p>\n

A: Yes. Theft.<\/em><\/p>\n

Q: Please tell the jury the background.<\/em><\/p>\n

A: I was out of work, and I stole from a neighbor.<\/em><\/p>\n

Q: Is that case over?<\/em><\/p>\n

A: I was on probation, and paid them back 100%.<\/em><\/p>\n

Q: Okay. Now, earlier you told us that you were at the scene because you volunteer as part of Town Watch. Let\u2019s talk about what happened after the police came.<\/em><\/p>\n

A: Okay.<\/em><\/p>\n

There are lawyers who draw the sting out as the first business of a direct examination, and these are usually prosecutors presenting a cooperating witness. Admittedly, the dynamic there is different \u2013 the prosecutor is not seeking to mitigate as much as to display her\/his own candor, and this up-front disclosure is part of the greater [if unstated] motifs of \u2018it takes a criminal to catch a criminal\u2019 and \u2018look at who this accused hangs out with.\u2019 But this should be the exception, not the rule.<\/p>\n

And should one ever forego \u2018taking the sting out\u2019 and ignore the impeaching material entirely? Two circumstances may justify that approach. Where the impeachment is so weak or petty as to bring shame upon the cross-examiner or make that party seem to be grasping for straws, the witness\u2019 proponent may decide to leave it alone. The second circumstance is dictated by whether the impeachment is arguably improper but a judge has ruled in limine <\/em>that it may occur. If the jurisdiction follows the rule of Ohler v. United States<\/em>, 120 S. Ct. 1851 (U.S. 2000) that if the witness\u2019 proponent elicits the information any objection is waived for appellate review, the decision of whether to \u2018take the sting out\u2019 must factor in the likelihood of winning or losing at trial and the strength of the issue on appeal.<\/p>\n

Overall, however, the preemptive impeachment is actually deft bolstering, an essential litigator\u2019s tool. if you don\u2019t shield the witness and mitigate, the witness\u2019 credibility will take a plunge, as will yours for failing to disclose.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Sadly, it can be the rare witness who does not come with some baggage \u2013 a criminal conviction, a potential bias, an inconsistent statement, or some other challenge to her\/his credibility. So, the proponent of that witness has to make a choice \u2013 bring it out first, or simply wait for the sting of cross-examination.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":1120,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"generate_page_header":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,8],"tags":[17,41,46,54,144],"coauthors":[330,328],"class_list":["post-1118","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-advocacy-and-evidence-blog","category-faculty-commentary","tag-advocacy","tag-cross-examination","tag-direct-examination","tag-evidence","tag-witness-credibility"],"yoast_head":"\nTaking the Sting Out: Using Direct Examination to Anticipate and Undercut Attacks on Your Witness - Advocacy and Evidence Resources<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2016\/03\/31\/taking-the-sting-out-using-direct-examination-to-anticipate-and-undercut-attacks-on-your-witness\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Taking the Sting Out: Using Direct Examination to Anticipate and Undercut Attacks on Your Witness - Advocacy and Evidence Resources\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Sadly, it can be the rare witness who does not come with some baggage \u2013 a criminal conviction, a potential bias, an inconsistent statement, or some other challenge to her\/his credibility. So, the proponent of that witness has to make a choice \u2013 bring it out first, or simply wait for the sting of cross-examination.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2016\/03\/31\/taking-the-sting-out-using-direct-examination-to-anticipate-and-undercut-attacks-on-your-witness\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Advocacy and Evidence Resources\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2016-03-31T12:41:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-12-16T14:58:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis), Isaac Christopher Samuel\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis), Isaac Christopher Samuel\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2016\/03\/31\/taking-the-sting-out-using-direct-examination-to-anticipate-and-undercut-attacks-on-your-witness\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2016\/03\/31\/taking-the-sting-out-using-direct-examination-to-anticipate-and-undercut-attacks-on-your-witness\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Isaac Christopher Samuel\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/person\/61016fe42fe0f0a07d83ffb6f69ff6ca\"},\"headline\":\"Taking the Sting Out: Using Direct Examination to Anticipate and Undercut Attacks on Your Witness\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-03-31T12:41:27+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-12-16T14:58:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2016\/03\/31\/taking-the-sting-out-using-direct-examination-to-anticipate-and-undercut-attacks-on-your-witness\/\"},\"wordCount\":995,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2016\/03\/31\/taking-the-sting-out-using-direct-examination-to-anticipate-and-undercut-attacks-on-your-witness\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"\",\"keywords\":[\"Advocacy\",\"Cross-Examination\",\"direct examination\",\"Evidence\",\"Witness Credibility\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Advocacy and Evidence Blog\",\"Faculty Commentary\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2016\/03\/31\/taking-the-sting-out-using-direct-examination-to-anticipate-and-undercut-attacks-on-your-witness\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2016\/03\/31\/taking-the-sting-out-using-direct-examination-to-anticipate-and-undercut-attacks-on-your-witness\/\",\"name\":\"Taking the Sting Out: Using Direct Examination to Anticipate and Undercut Attacks on Your Witness - Advocacy and Evidence Resources\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2016\/03\/31\/taking-the-sting-out-using-direct-examination-to-anticipate-and-undercut-attacks-on-your-witness\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2016\/03\/31\/taking-the-sting-out-using-direct-examination-to-anticipate-and-undercut-attacks-on-your-witness\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-03-31T12:41:27+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-12-16T14:58:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2016\/03\/31\/taking-the-sting-out-using-direct-examination-to-anticipate-and-undercut-attacks-on-your-witness\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2016\/03\/31\/taking-the-sting-out-using-direct-examination-to-anticipate-and-undercut-attacks-on-your-witness\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2016\/03\/31\/taking-the-sting-out-using-direct-examination-to-anticipate-and-undercut-attacks-on-your-witness\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"\",\"contentUrl\":\"\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2016\/03\/31\/taking-the-sting-out-using-direct-examination-to-anticipate-and-undercut-attacks-on-your-witness\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Taking the Sting Out: Using Direct Examination to Anticipate and Undercut Attacks on Your Witness\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/\",\"name\":\"Advocacy and Evidence Resources\",\"description\":\"Just another Law Sites site\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Advocacy and Evidence Resources\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2021\/07\/AER-LOGO.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2021\/07\/AER-LOGO.png\",\"width\":711,\"height\":220,\"caption\":\"Advocacy and Evidence Resources\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/person\/61016fe42fe0f0a07d83ffb6f69ff6ca\",\"name\":\"Isaac Christopher Samuel\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c233de050df185c445f7660028f807423e84c1633c23c04af11ef4b4c5829e2d?s=96&d=mm&r=g1bae4e05168c74899480cc14a66a7eda\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c233de050df185c445f7660028f807423e84c1633c23c04af11ef4b4c5829e2d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c233de050df185c445f7660028f807423e84c1633c23c04af11ef4b4c5829e2d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Isaac Christopher Samuel\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/author\/tuf97238\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Taking the Sting Out: Using Direct Examination to Anticipate and Undercut Attacks on Your Witness - Advocacy and Evidence Resources","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2016\/03\/31\/taking-the-sting-out-using-direct-examination-to-anticipate-and-undercut-attacks-on-your-witness\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Taking the Sting Out: Using Direct Examination to Anticipate and Undercut Attacks on Your Witness - Advocacy and Evidence Resources","og_description":"Sadly, it can be the rare witness who does not come with some baggage \u2013 a criminal conviction, a potential bias, an inconsistent statement, or some other challenge to her\/his credibility. So, the proponent of that witness has to make a choice \u2013 bring it out first, or simply wait for the sting of cross-examination.","og_url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2016\/03\/31\/taking-the-sting-out-using-direct-examination-to-anticipate-and-undercut-attacks-on-your-witness\/","og_site_name":"Advocacy and Evidence Resources","article_published_time":"2016-03-31T12:41:27+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-12-16T14:58:50+00:00","author":"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis), Isaac Christopher Samuel","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis), Isaac Christopher Samuel","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2016\/03\/31\/taking-the-sting-out-using-direct-examination-to-anticipate-and-undercut-attacks-on-your-witness\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2016\/03\/31\/taking-the-sting-out-using-direct-examination-to-anticipate-and-undercut-attacks-on-your-witness\/"},"author":{"name":"Isaac Christopher Samuel","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/person\/61016fe42fe0f0a07d83ffb6f69ff6ca"},"headline":"Taking the Sting Out: Using Direct Examination to Anticipate and Undercut Attacks on Your Witness","datePublished":"2016-03-31T12:41:27+00:00","dateModified":"2021-12-16T14:58:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2016\/03\/31\/taking-the-sting-out-using-direct-examination-to-anticipate-and-undercut-attacks-on-your-witness\/"},"wordCount":995,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2016\/03\/31\/taking-the-sting-out-using-direct-examination-to-anticipate-and-undercut-attacks-on-your-witness\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"","keywords":["Advocacy","Cross-Examination","direct examination","Evidence","Witness Credibility"],"articleSection":["Advocacy and Evidence Blog","Faculty Commentary"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2016\/03\/31\/taking-the-sting-out-using-direct-examination-to-anticipate-and-undercut-attacks-on-your-witness\/","url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2016\/03\/31\/taking-the-sting-out-using-direct-examination-to-anticipate-and-undercut-attacks-on-your-witness\/","name":"Taking the Sting Out: Using Direct Examination to Anticipate and Undercut Attacks on Your Witness - Advocacy and Evidence Resources","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2016\/03\/31\/taking-the-sting-out-using-direct-examination-to-anticipate-and-undercut-attacks-on-your-witness\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2016\/03\/31\/taking-the-sting-out-using-direct-examination-to-anticipate-and-undercut-attacks-on-your-witness\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"","datePublished":"2016-03-31T12:41:27+00:00","dateModified":"2021-12-16T14:58:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2016\/03\/31\/taking-the-sting-out-using-direct-examination-to-anticipate-and-undercut-attacks-on-your-witness\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2016\/03\/31\/taking-the-sting-out-using-direct-examination-to-anticipate-and-undercut-attacks-on-your-witness\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2016\/03\/31\/taking-the-sting-out-using-direct-examination-to-anticipate-and-undercut-attacks-on-your-witness\/#primaryimage","url":"","contentUrl":""},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2016\/03\/31\/taking-the-sting-out-using-direct-examination-to-anticipate-and-undercut-attacks-on-your-witness\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Taking the Sting Out: Using Direct Examination to Anticipate and Undercut Attacks on Your Witness"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#website","url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/","name":"Advocacy and Evidence Resources","description":"Just another Law Sites site","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#organization","name":"Advocacy and Evidence Resources","url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2021\/07\/AER-LOGO.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2021\/07\/AER-LOGO.png","width":711,"height":220,"caption":"Advocacy and Evidence Resources"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/person\/61016fe42fe0f0a07d83ffb6f69ff6ca","name":"Isaac Christopher Samuel","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c233de050df185c445f7660028f807423e84c1633c23c04af11ef4b4c5829e2d?s=96&d=mm&r=g1bae4e05168c74899480cc14a66a7eda","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c233de050df185c445f7660028f807423e84c1633c23c04af11ef4b4c5829e2d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c233de050df185c445f7660028f807423e84c1633c23c04af11ef4b4c5829e2d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Isaac Christopher Samuel"},"url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/author\/tuf97238\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1118","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1118"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1118\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3445,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1118\/revisions\/3445"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1118"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1118"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1118"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=1118"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}