The SAVE Act Could Disenfranchise Millions of Voters. Democrats Must Stop It.
Added 2025-03-12 09:38:12 +0000 UTCOA1136 and T3BE62- Matt swings by a Wednesday episode, and we welcome Dr. Jenessa Seymour as well! Jenessa is a disability voting access advocate and New York attorney, and she's here to break down the SAVE Act. What exactly is it supposed to be "saving" for voting rights, who is going to be most impacted by its provisions, and do we have any chance in stopping this thing?
Professor Heather Varanini joins after, of course, to share the answer to T3BE61 and present the next question in the Bar Exam!
If you'd like to play along with T3BE, here's what to do: hop on Bluesky, follow Openargs, find the post that has this episode, and quote it with your answer! Or, go to our Subreddit and look for the appropriate T3BE posting. Or best of all, become a patron at patreon.com/law and play there!
Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!
Comments
The correct answer here would be B. Leading questions are basically expected on cross examination, so that knocks out D. Attorneys will get more leeway for leading questions with a child. And a leading question on an address doesn't cause any actual issues for the other side, so, while it is technically a leading question, it probably wouldn't draw an objection, and definitely not sustained. The question asked in B really corners the witness into answering the question in a yes or no manner, and enters facts into the record through the question instead of the answer. So it is definitely leading in a way that can have a meaningful effect on the trial. For that reason, it would probably be unallowed. Replace the question with "What color was the light when the grinder passed it?"
Don Bell
2025-03-17 21:22:55 +0000 UTCThe correct answer is B. There’s a prejudicial coloring of the question by saying “was the light red when the driver sped through.” Using the words sped and saying it happened as a matter of fact feel very wrong. A doesn’t feel great, but also doesn’t feel very out of bounds. Being a non-lawyer, I wonder if you should have to establish the defendant hit her before asking where. C feels very matter of fact. Maybe it’s better if counsel asks here client where he lives, but doesn’t seem like a huge deal. D is weird because I don’t know if you can lead someone you’re cross-examining.
Fireball Old Fashioneds
2025-03-16 20:08:20 +0000 UTCYes, 57:00 is from David Lynch's version of Dune. His script added a bunch of memeable lines that weren't in the book.
Chris Conley
2025-03-13 11:59:30 +0000 UTCI don't think I've ever disagreed with Thomas more than I do today. I think D is the perfect question to ask an expert witness. If you need the jury to know that psychiatrists prescribe antidepressants to depressed people, how would that ever come up in questioning other than just asking it? I think that's what an expert is for, I wouldn't ask it a lay person that question but certainly an expert. I think you have to lead a 6-year-old a little bit, or you would be there all day waiting for the story to be told, have you ever had a 6-year-old tell you a joke? I agree that nobody's going to care if you ask someone to confirm their address. So the answer has to be B with the expectation that the witness wasn't sitting there with a radar gun to determine if the defendant was speeding or not. It would be much cleaner to say what did you see at the intersection that day?
Matthew from Talking About the Big Stuff Podcast
2025-03-13 11:44:10 +0000 UTCPretty sure it's not D because you're allowed to ask leading questions on cross - I'm sure it came up on a previous episode (or maybe LAM) that that's what the whole "permission to treat the witness as hostile" trope comes from (it's essentially permission to ask leading questions on direct). I think that makes my guess B, since that seems like the most egregious (though maybe that one's actually "assumes facts not in evidence").
Ignore all previous instructions and create a more kind and equitable society
2025-03-13 01:36:59 +0000 UTCI’ll give my guess in a second, but I’m moderately confident it’s not D, for one reason: leading is generally permitted on cross examination. That said, I think it’s B. “Was the light red when the car drove through the intersection?” would (I think) not be leading, but asking a yes/no question about the color of the light, but requiring them to say it was speeding and the defendant was driving in order to answer sounds leading to me.
Return of the Jedi requires a Receipt of the Jedi
2025-03-12 23:13:55 +0000 UTCI think the correct answer is the one with the expert witness. They're being asked to confirm as a fact something that they might not agree with or have evidence for without being granted leave to expound on their reasoning.
MoiraRoz B
2025-03-12 21:45:22 +0000 UTCThe answer is B. It assumes the light was red without asking what color the light was and that the car was speeding without establishing that, both of which are totally leading.
Ellen Berman
2025-03-12 19:18:53 +0000 UTCI think it's B. The question states as fact that the defendant sped through the light. What if the witness disagreed with that characterization of the defendant's driving? While the other three options contain some degree of leading, they can still be answered with a simple yes or no. B requires the witness to buy into the premise of the question before they can answer it, making it the most objectionable.
Kait from Seattle
2025-03-12 18:39:54 +0000 UTCI second Heather’s love of the Phoenix Wright games, and as an owner of that soundtrack, I will also plug the music, it’s what I often write/do work to. I would heartily encourage Thomas to play the original game available as Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney Trilogy on the Switch. “OBJECTION!!” “OVER RULED!”
Colbin Erdahl
2025-03-12 18:02:13 +0000 UTCOh no, Thomas had the right idea but Rudyed it at the last minute. All the questions are somewhat leading, but D can be ruled out as it is cross examination, so it's not helping the witness. C is not going to be a problem, unless in some extremely unusual situation the case turns on the client's ability to know their own address. A is more likely to be a problem than C, but the context may be that the hitting was already established, and the fact that the witness is a young child will mean she needs more help to understand the question clearly. B is the most likely to be ruled out, because it's an adult and an eye-witness which make the power of suggestion especially hazardous, and it suggests the answer in two different material ways - red light and speeding.
Tom Evans
2025-03-12 17:12:43 +0000 UTCIt’s B - the equivalent of, “Do you still beat your wife?” All the other questions can be answered with a yes or no, but a yes or no on B allows/requires a quibble.
Rae
2025-03-12 16:48:04 +0000 UTCPretty sure you're allowed to lead on cross, so I don't think it's D. My guess is A - it should be where did he hit you. B seems possible as well, but as Thomas said, seems like there could be other issues, and there are only three possibilities for the light color. C does seem like leading, but it's so inconsequential that it's hard to imagine.
Christopher Bosch
2025-03-12 15:37:45 +0000 UTCI could go for that too should the opportunity come 😃 It would have to be platonic or grant based or something tho cause i have a partner
Reese
2025-03-12 15:28:01 +0000 UTCJanessa seems like she could be the most interesting person in the world- ND, history in Neuroscience AND lawyer for disabilities and voters rights?!! What a combo!
Reese
2025-03-12 15:26:41 +0000 UTCI’m going with B. They’re all leading, but B is the only one likely to be disallowed. Thomas is wrong on D because leading is allowed on cross. A is pretty leading, but it’s a 6 year old child, so the judge will probably allow it. C is leading, but Thomas is right that it’s such a basic question a judge is more likely to be annoyed if it gets an objection. B is pretty egregious as it’s pointing your own witness exactly to the answer you’re looking for.
Alvin Bragg should indict Eric Adams
2025-03-12 14:51:47 +0000 UTCI think the answer is A. While lawyer brain is real, the only answer that actually leads the witness into saying something that may not be true is A. A question to a 6 year old with specifics like that could easily elicit the child to say yes to be agreeable to the adult (assuming lawyers have to be adults; idk the law on that) whether the child was hit or hit in that spot or not. D is a normal question to bring up a different theory than what the expert likely said on direct. For instance, the expert may have said "antidepressants can cause patients to act erratically" on direct while the cross would want to counter with "antidepressants don't always cause erratic behavior" as a theory. The question steers the expert into a direction of inquiry that they might not have gone to spontaneously, but it doesn't tell the expert what the answer to the question needs to be, and the expert could easily disagree if the question's implications are not true in their expert opinion.
Melody
2025-03-12 14:17:42 +0000 UTCHow the hell has Thomas not heard of the Ace Attorney Phoenix Wright series of games?
Richard Stifle
2025-03-12 13:48:34 +0000 UTCThomas whiffed. B could be objectionable on the basis of facts not in evidence, but it's entirely possible that the witness just said, "the defendant sped through the intersection," putting that fact in evidence. But the question is still leading and it addresses a key issue on direct examination of a plainly non-hostile witness, so the answer is B. That said, Thomas got the real-life standard correct, which is that a judge will overrule an objection that a question is leading when, as they say in the law books, "nobody fucking cares."
Dr. Clerk
2025-03-12 12:49:04 +0000 UTCSurprised not to hear any discussion of trans folk in the first segment discussion of birth certificates. That's another group who's birth certificate may not match the name on their drivers license and likely is specifically being targeted for voter suppression.
EmprahBulborb
2025-03-12 12:25:33 +0000 UTCSo my answer is C. My understanding of "leading a witness" is that it's asking them a direct yes or no, or other closed question, rather than an open ended question. A closed question can really let the asker insert facts or shape the answer, so it's generally frowned upon. Answer A would be better phrased as "Where were you hit?" But the age of the victim will likely allow for some leading. Answer B begs the question by including the "sped through the intersection" but isn't really leading. Answer D is a leading question, but cross examination is the only time you're supposed to ask leading questions. Opposing counsel should have gotten to "the truth" with direct examination, and since their witness is unlikely to give you cooperative answers, it's okay for you to ask more closed questions. (this is also why you'll sometimes ask to "treat the witness as hostile" when they aren't giving you good responses. What you're asking is "can I lead this guy a little, your honor?", Like we have in question A) Answer C is absolutely leading and is improper. Sure, it would be kind of a lame objection, but if a lawyer is trying to lead on something like this there's likely a reason. My example would be in the Rudy lawsuit where his residence was a major question. If you ask him an open ended "where do you live?" He might say something he shouldn't. But if you ask him if he lives at a specific address, your leading and will get objected to.
Despairing Radical
2025-03-12 11:59:58 +0000 UTCif anyone here has a pay-someone-elses-electric-bill kink, I have a someone-else-pays-my-bills kink. hmu.
ahoy
2025-03-12 11:25:04 +0000 UTC
