XaiJu
law
law

patreon


T(&A)TTBE #30: Early Answer For Patrons

I'm just getting back from my talk to the Lehigh Valley Humanists, which was awesome and will be up on YouTube (and which I'm going to try and talk Thomas into turning into an episode of the show).  So you might want to check it out -- there's some good bits in it and I go into more depth on some familiar targets from the show.

Anyway, the answer to the bar exam question was, in fact, "A," so Thomas and Andrew got it right.  This was, in fact, an objectionable question based on pure speculation.

People guessed B, C, and D, so here are my thoughts on those:

"B," Thomas's second choice, suggests that the law recognizes an exception for questioning police credibility.  That's actually not how it works; the law begins with the presumption that relevant questions are permitted and then excludes certain very narrow categories of stuff.

"C" was a good elimination for the reasons Thomas said on the show.

"D" was actually the answer I thought was the most attractive distractor:  that the witness may know something he is not revealing and for that reason the questioner is given wide latitude.  As it turns out, that's actually the opposite of the real law, in which cross-examination questions are confined to the substance of direct.

Thomas is now on a one-question winning streak and is 14-for-30 (46.67%), creeping back up towards that .500 mark.

Tuesday's show is the law of the Fourth of July, which we think you'll enjoy.

Comments

That brings to my mind a question: if a lawyer were acting improperly (e.g., asking questions in cross that are unrelated to the direct), and the opposing lawyer does not object, can the judge intervene? Would they actually do so?

Christopher Arguin

I really hope you post the talk as an episode. Much easier to listen to in the feed than on YouTube.

Kristin Mendez


More Creators