Home
So I decided to continue making a cross of Angel Duncan from last years mock trail case (along with explanations of potential objection battles I would get into). All in all, I think that this character is pretty easy to cross. He has sooo many bias pockets and bad stuff that hurts their side that he's sort of a freebie. Luckily, he can be played as kind of a lovable idiot, so there's not too much harm in calling him, but unless you have someone who is awesome to play him you can be destroyed instantly.
When you got out of jail, you'd say it was hard to find employment with a felony conviction, right?
But Neptune offered you a job, isn't that true?
Mr. Duncan, you'd say you owe a debt to Ms Hathaway, for giving you a job at Neptune, wouldn't you?
And, you hope to someday repay that debt, don't you?
You're here testifying on behalf of Ms. Hathaway and Neptune, correct?
Be ready with the line numbers for impeachment here. Make sure you nail him down to these statements, if not impeach. Be firm with these questions. If they object relevance, this obviously goes to bias and bias is always relevant, once again for the jury to be able to determine how much weight they should give to this witness's testimony.
II. Lee Allen – Duncan's lying!
On direct you talked about a conversation you overheard between Lee and his wife Andy on July 6th, correct?
I'd like to focus on this conversation for a minute. You were the only person to hear this conversation, right? [technically, there is no way for him to know if someone else heard or not]
To the best of your knowledge, there is no one besides you that can testify to this conversation ever taking place, isn't that true?
Now, you shouldn't have to repeat the conversation, plus no need to reemphasize bad evidence for us but if you do bring out specific statement and they object hearsay to this (which they shouldn't but in any case), there are two approaches:
I. not for truth of the matter asserted but for this witnesses subsequent action, namely not telling any Neptune employee about this conversation.
II. testimony was already elicited on direct examination, it is now part of the record and is no longer an "out of court statement" therefore it is no longer hearsay.
Needless to say, you should be objecting hearsay to them talking about this on direct examination!
But this isn't the only conversation you overheard during this trip is it?
You also overheard a conversation between Casey French and Reggie Rodgers, correct?
You heard Mr. French say that Lee was not in the same class as the other customers, right?
You also heard Mr. Rodgers say that Lee had trouble finding the anchor line, correct?
You also Heard Mr. Rodgers say "If Lee has trouble doing 90 in open water, we're going to have problems on Thursday?
Then you saw Ms. Hathaway come in, correct?
You heard Rodgers tell Ms. Hathaway that maybe Lee Allen wasn't ready to dive on the Hepburn, correct?
And then you heard Ms. Hathaway say “the Allens paid us 20 thousand dollars. “
She then said “They're going in the water. End of conversation."
If they object hearsay to any conversations between Neptune employees it is admissible because it is an admission by a party opponent under Rule 801(d)(2)(d). It's is a statement made by a party (Neptune)'s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship (having o do with diving in essence), while that relationship existed (while they were employed).
Now let’s talk about the day of the Hepburn dive.
On the morning of the dive, Andy Allen told you that she needed some cold medicine?
And because she asked for cold medicine, you knew she was sick.
So you immediately told Ms. Hathway this information, didn’t you?
And when you told this to Ms. Hathaway, she told you that because Andy couldn’t dive, Lee couldn’t dive.
When you got out of jail, you'd say it was hard to find employment with a felony conviction, right?
But Neptune offered you a job, isn't that true?
Mr. Duncan, you'd say you owe a debt to Ms Hathaway, for giving you a job at Neptune, wouldn't you?
And, you hope to someday repay that debt, don't you?
You're here testifying on behalf of Ms. Hathaway and Neptune, correct?
Be ready with the line numbers for impeachment here. Make sure you nail him down to these statements, if not impeach. Be firm with these questions. If they object relevance, this obviously goes to bias and bias is always relevant, once again for the jury to be able to determine how much weight they should give to this witness's testimony.
II. Lee Allen – Duncan's lying!
On direct you talked about a conversation you overheard between Lee and his wife Andy on July 6th, correct?
I'd like to focus on this conversation for a minute. You were the only person to hear this conversation, right? [technically, there is no way for him to know if someone else heard or not]
To the best of your knowledge, there is no one besides you that can testify to this conversation ever taking place, isn't that true?
Now, you shouldn't have to repeat the conversation, plus no need to reemphasize bad evidence for us but if you do bring out specific statement and they object hearsay to this (which they shouldn't but in any case), there are two approaches:
I. not for truth of the matter asserted but for this witnesses subsequent action, namely not telling any Neptune employee about this conversation.
II. testimony was already elicited on direct examination, it is now part of the record and is no longer an "out of court statement" therefore it is no longer hearsay.
Needless to say, you should be objecting hearsay to them talking about this on direct examination!
But this isn't the only conversation you overheard during this trip is it?
You also overheard a conversation between Casey French and Reggie Rodgers, correct?
You heard Mr. French say that Lee was not in the same class as the other customers, right?
You also heard Mr. Rodgers say that Lee had trouble finding the anchor line, correct?
You also Heard Mr. Rodgers say "If Lee has trouble doing 90 in open water, we're going to have problems on Thursday?
Then you saw Ms. Hathaway come in, correct?
You heard Rodgers tell Ms. Hathaway that maybe Lee Allen wasn't ready to dive on the Hepburn, correct?
And then you heard Ms. Hathaway say “the Allens paid us 20 thousand dollars. “
She then said “They're going in the water. End of conversation."
If they object hearsay to any conversations between Neptune employees it is admissible because it is an admission by a party opponent under Rule 801(d)(2)(d). It's is a statement made by a party (Neptune)'s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship (having o do with diving in essence), while that relationship existed (while they were employed).
Now let’s talk about the day of the Hepburn dive.
On the morning of the dive, Andy Allen told you that she needed some cold medicine?
And because she asked for cold medicine, you knew she was sick.
So you immediately told Ms. Hathway this information, didn’t you?
And when you told this to Ms. Hathaway, she told you that because Andy couldn’t dive, Lee couldn’t dive.
