{"id":2007,"date":"2017-07-22T09:39:40","date_gmt":"2017-07-22T13:39:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/aer\/?p=2007"},"modified":"2021-12-16T14:58:21","modified_gmt":"2021-12-16T14:58:21","slug":"taking-sting-2-contextualizing-bad-evidence-direct-examination","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/07\/22\/taking-sting-2-contextualizing-bad-evidence-direct-examination\/","title":{"rendered":"TAKING THE STING OUT 2 – CONTEXTUALIZING \u2018BAD\u2019 EVIDENCE ON DIRECT EXAMINATION"},"content":{"rendered":"

Be it because jurors appreciate and value a lawyer\u2019s candor, or because damage control or \u2018spin\u2019 is the better way to address painful or discomfiting facts, a direct examiner best serves the witness and the case by \u2018fronting\u2019 bad evidence.\u00a0 [An earlier ADVOCACY AND EVIDENCE blog on the law and advocacy rationales for doing so may be found at https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/aer\/taking-the-sting-out-using-direct-examination-to-anticipate-and-undercut-attacks-on-your-witness\/<\/a> .]<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

But more needs to be done.\u00a0 Bringing out the bad in advance ensures that it will come out with you, the proponent, in control; but the danger is that it contradicts or at least undercuts your story.\u00a0 The skilled lawyer must search for a direct examination design that not only discloses the harmful information but makes it understandable and at least neutral if not in fact supportive of the case theory and theme.<\/p>\n

That this can be achieved became apparent in a recent advocacy course being taught to foreign students.\u00a0 The first step in their training was a basic direct examination in a case where there were no negative facts.\u00a0 It was the story of a bicyclist struck by a car.\u00a0 The initial scenario was as follows:<\/p>\n

It was around 7:45 p.m. on November 11, 2016.\u00a0 I was at my home at 7604 Montgomery Avenue.\u00a0 I realized I was hungry and I wanted to rush to the nearby food store, CREEKSIDE COOP, to buy some chocolate.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I ran outside and grabbed my bicycle and bicycled down Montgomery Avenue.\u00a0 I reached the corner of Montgomery and High School, where I have no stop sign but traffic on High School does.\u00a0 I turned left onto High School to go to the COOP when my bike was hit by a car.\u00a0 I was knocked off the bike and landed on my shoulder.\u00a0 That is when my collarbone broke.\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n

The driver of the car got out and came over to me.\u00a0 He leaned over me, real close to my face, and said \u201cthis is awful.\u00a0 I feel terrible.\u201d\u00a0 I could smell alcohol on his breath.<\/strong><\/p>\n

People in the store saw this and called the police, who took me to the nearby hospital.\u00a0 I was there for several hours until x-rays showed I was fine except for the broken collarbone.\u00a0 I had to wear a sling on my arm for 6 weeks; and was in pain for most of that time.\u00a0 My medical bills that were not covered by insurance totaled $1,248.69.\u00a0 I lost one week of work, and thus lost $4,000 in salary.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Here, the assignment was simple \u2013 tell the story with good primacy and recency questions and an emphasis on making the facts comprehensible to someone who had no prior exposure to the event [the typical juror].<\/p>\n

Step two involved introducing a list of potentially harmful facts.\u00a0 The students had to decide which facts were harmful and harmful at a level that warranted disclosure during direct; and once those facts were identified they had to be inserted into the previously-crafted direct examination.\u00a0 The facts they had to consider were:<\/p>\n

Mr. James was wearing all black clothes<\/p>\n

His bicycle was black<\/p>\n

His bicycle had no headlight on it<\/p>\n

It was dark, with no moon<\/p>\n

As Mr. James approached the corner he was going down the hill at a high rate of speed<\/p>\n

Mr. James has a 2012 Perjury conviction<\/p>\n

Mr. James taught a course on bike safety<\/p>\n

Mr. James has had no alcohol to drink since 1973<\/p>\n

When the police first came Mr. James told police \u201cmaybe it was my fault.\u201d<\/p>\n

Take the last fact, the party-opponent admission of possible fault.\u00a0 One may be able to construct a legal challenge to admissibility, claiming that the words were said in shock after an accident and thus had minimal reliability and the potential to confuse or mislead.\u00a0 But the advocate must prepare to have the words come in.<\/p>\n

The suggestion here is that the words can be embraced, or at least rendered null, by expert placement.\u00a0 Clearly, the words were said just after an accident, and that deserved to be emphasized.\u00a0 As the class worked on the case, the suggested outline became clear:<\/p>\n

Q:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 You\u2019ve told us about the car hitting your bike and your falling to the ground.\u00a0 Once on the ground, was there any pain?<\/p>\n

Q:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 How severe was that pain?<\/p>\n

Q:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Did the police arrive?<\/p>\n

Q:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Were you still on the ground?<\/p>\n

Q:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 What was your level of pain when the police were there?<\/p>\n

Q:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Tell the jury what you remember saying to the police while on the ground and in pain?<\/p>\n

Q:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Let\u2019s take those words \u201cmaybe it was my fault.\u201d\u00a0 When you rode down the hill and turned left, did you have a stop sign or did you have the right of way?<\/p>\n

Q:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 What about the car.\u00a0 Did it have a stop sign or did it have the right of way.<\/p>\n

Unless the recency questions will be those eliciting the driver\u2019s admission and intoxication, those facts can also be added here.<\/p>\n

Q:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 You told us what you told the police when you were in pain.\u00a0 Did the driver say any words?<\/p>\n

Q:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 When the driver said those words did he appear in pain?<\/p>\n

Q:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 What did you observe about the driver?<\/p>\n

Not all bad facts will be as easily contextualized.\u00a0 A perjury conviction is a perjury conviction; riding a bike without a light at dark is not smart\/safe behavior.\u00a0 But much bad evidence can<\/em> be neutralized if the advocate contemplates and then demonstrates context.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Be it because jurors appreciate and value a lawyer\u2019s candor, or because damage control or \u2018spin\u2019 is the better way to address painful or discomfiting facts, a direct examiner best serves the witness and the case by \u2018fronting\u2019 bad evidence.\u00a0 [An earlier ADVOCACY AND EVIDENCE blog on the law and advocacy rationales for doing so<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":31,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"generate_page_header":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,3,11],"tags":[],"coauthors":[238],"class_list":["post-2007","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-advocacy","category-advocacy-and-evidence-blog","category-trial-advocacy"],"yoast_head":"\nTAKING THE STING OUT 2 - CONTEXTUALIZING \u2018BAD\u2019 EVIDENCE ON DIRECT EXAMINATION - Advocacy and Evidence Resources<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Skilled lawyers must not only disclose harmful information but make it understandable and at least neutral if not supportive of the case theory and theme.\" \/>\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\/2017\/07\/22\/taking-sting-2-contextualizing-bad-evidence-direct-examination\/\" \/>\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 2 - CONTEXTUALIZING \u2018BAD\u2019 EVIDENCE ON DIRECT EXAMINATION - Advocacy and Evidence Resources\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Skilled lawyers must not only disclose harmful information but make it understandable and at least neutral if not supportive of the case theory and theme.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/07\/22\/taking-sting-2-contextualizing-bad-evidence-direct-examination\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Advocacy and Evidence Resources\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2017-07-22T13:39:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-12-16T14:58:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2017\/06\/turning-bad-things-into-good-things-is-up-to-you1.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"960\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"720\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)\" \/>\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)\" \/>\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\/2017\/07\/22\/taking-sting-2-contextualizing-bad-evidence-direct-examination\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/07\/22\/taking-sting-2-contextualizing-bad-evidence-direct-examination\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/person\/ebe47f403ad14e2c5faec834f2d8472e\"},\"headline\":\"TAKING THE STING OUT 2 – CONTEXTUALIZING \u2018BAD\u2019 EVIDENCE ON DIRECT EXAMINATION\",\"datePublished\":\"2017-07-22T13:39:40+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-12-16T14:58:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/07\/22\/taking-sting-2-contextualizing-bad-evidence-direct-examination\/\"},\"wordCount\":919,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/07\/22\/taking-sting-2-contextualizing-bad-evidence-direct-examination\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/law-dev.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2017\/06\/turning-bad-things-into-good-things-is-up-to-you1-300x225.png\",\"articleSection\":[\"Advocacy\",\"Advocacy and Evidence Blog\",\"Trial Advocacy\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/07\/22\/taking-sting-2-contextualizing-bad-evidence-direct-examination\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/07\/22\/taking-sting-2-contextualizing-bad-evidence-direct-examination\/\",\"name\":\"TAKING THE STING OUT 2 - CONTEXTUALIZING \u2018BAD\u2019 EVIDENCE ON DIRECT EXAMINATION - Advocacy and Evidence Resources\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/07\/22\/taking-sting-2-contextualizing-bad-evidence-direct-examination\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/07\/22\/taking-sting-2-contextualizing-bad-evidence-direct-examination\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/law-dev.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2017\/06\/turning-bad-things-into-good-things-is-up-to-you1-300x225.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2017-07-22T13:39:40+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-12-16T14:58:21+00:00\",\"description\":\"Skilled lawyers must not only disclose harmful information but make it understandable and at least neutral if not supportive of the case theory and theme.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/07\/22\/taking-sting-2-contextualizing-bad-evidence-direct-examination\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/07\/22\/taking-sting-2-contextualizing-bad-evidence-direct-examination\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/07\/22\/taking-sting-2-contextualizing-bad-evidence-direct-examination\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/law-dev.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2017\/06\/turning-bad-things-into-good-things-is-up-to-you1-300x225.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/law-dev.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2017\/06\/turning-bad-things-into-good-things-is-up-to-you1-300x225.png\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/07\/22\/taking-sting-2-contextualizing-bad-evidence-direct-examination\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"TAKING THE STING OUT 2 – CONTEXTUALIZING \u2018BAD\u2019 EVIDENCE ON DIRECT EXAMINATION\"}]},{\"@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\/ebe47f403ad14e2c5faec834f2d8472e\",\"name\":\"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d2a56b84151f5331c5c999af7a12cc505aeed9fec929142bc9dd30b398301e5b?s=96&d=mm&r=g6b68adb939ecac32ef61d8026f0bafe4\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d2a56b84151f5331c5c999af7a12cc505aeed9fec929142bc9dd30b398301e5b?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d2a56b84151f5331c5c999af7a12cc505aeed9fec929142bc9dd30b398301e5b?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/author\/tug27334\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"TAKING THE STING OUT 2 - CONTEXTUALIZING \u2018BAD\u2019 EVIDENCE ON DIRECT EXAMINATION - Advocacy and Evidence Resources","description":"Skilled lawyers must not only disclose harmful information but make it understandable and at least neutral if not supportive of the case theory and theme.","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\/2017\/07\/22\/taking-sting-2-contextualizing-bad-evidence-direct-examination\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"TAKING THE STING OUT 2 - CONTEXTUALIZING \u2018BAD\u2019 EVIDENCE ON DIRECT EXAMINATION - Advocacy and Evidence Resources","og_description":"Skilled lawyers must not only disclose harmful information but make it understandable and at least neutral if not supportive of the case theory and theme.","og_url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/07\/22\/taking-sting-2-contextualizing-bad-evidence-direct-examination\/","og_site_name":"Advocacy and Evidence Resources","article_published_time":"2017-07-22T13:39:40+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-12-16T14:58:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":960,"height":720,"url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2017\/06\/turning-bad-things-into-good-things-is-up-to-you1.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/07\/22\/taking-sting-2-contextualizing-bad-evidence-direct-examination\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/07\/22\/taking-sting-2-contextualizing-bad-evidence-direct-examination\/"},"author":{"name":"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/person\/ebe47f403ad14e2c5faec834f2d8472e"},"headline":"TAKING THE STING OUT 2 – CONTEXTUALIZING \u2018BAD\u2019 EVIDENCE ON DIRECT EXAMINATION","datePublished":"2017-07-22T13:39:40+00:00","dateModified":"2021-12-16T14:58:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/07\/22\/taking-sting-2-contextualizing-bad-evidence-direct-examination\/"},"wordCount":919,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/07\/22\/taking-sting-2-contextualizing-bad-evidence-direct-examination\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/law-dev.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2017\/06\/turning-bad-things-into-good-things-is-up-to-you1-300x225.png","articleSection":["Advocacy","Advocacy and Evidence Blog","Trial Advocacy"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/07\/22\/taking-sting-2-contextualizing-bad-evidence-direct-examination\/","url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/07\/22\/taking-sting-2-contextualizing-bad-evidence-direct-examination\/","name":"TAKING THE STING OUT 2 - CONTEXTUALIZING \u2018BAD\u2019 EVIDENCE ON DIRECT EXAMINATION - Advocacy and Evidence Resources","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/07\/22\/taking-sting-2-contextualizing-bad-evidence-direct-examination\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/07\/22\/taking-sting-2-contextualizing-bad-evidence-direct-examination\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/law-dev.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2017\/06\/turning-bad-things-into-good-things-is-up-to-you1-300x225.png","datePublished":"2017-07-22T13:39:40+00:00","dateModified":"2021-12-16T14:58:21+00:00","description":"Skilled lawyers must not only disclose harmful information but make it understandable and at least neutral if not supportive of the case theory and theme.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/07\/22\/taking-sting-2-contextualizing-bad-evidence-direct-examination\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/07\/22\/taking-sting-2-contextualizing-bad-evidence-direct-examination\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/07\/22\/taking-sting-2-contextualizing-bad-evidence-direct-examination\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/law-dev.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2017\/06\/turning-bad-things-into-good-things-is-up-to-you1-300x225.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/law-dev.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2017\/06\/turning-bad-things-into-good-things-is-up-to-you1-300x225.png"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/07\/22\/taking-sting-2-contextualizing-bad-evidence-direct-examination\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"TAKING THE STING OUT 2 – CONTEXTUALIZING \u2018BAD\u2019 EVIDENCE ON DIRECT EXAMINATION"}]},{"@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\/ebe47f403ad14e2c5faec834f2d8472e","name":"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d2a56b84151f5331c5c999af7a12cc505aeed9fec929142bc9dd30b398301e5b?s=96&d=mm&r=g6b68adb939ecac32ef61d8026f0bafe4","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d2a56b84151f5331c5c999af7a12cc505aeed9fec929142bc9dd30b398301e5b?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d2a56b84151f5331c5c999af7a12cc505aeed9fec929142bc9dd30b398301e5b?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)"},"url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/author\/tug27334\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2007","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\/31"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2007"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2007\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3407,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2007\/revisions\/3407"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2007"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2007"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2007"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=2007"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}