Re: [nukkad] Forgive me attorneys

["Dr.M.C. Gupta" <>]

[This message contained attachments that have been removed.]


1. It is titled: Forgive me attorneys. You have committed no offence, so
question of forgiving does not arise.

2. I can think of clear reasoning on the part of the attoney in some of
these, specially the following 2:


ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death.
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?
WITNESS: Now whose death do you suppose terminated it?


******

There are smart witnesses and false witnesses. In every case, there are
hidden reasons behind a question or answer. Then, there is the examination
and the cross examination. The former by the witness's own counsel [counsel
for the party which has produced the witness]; the latter by the opposite
counsel.  In the instant case, suppose the marriage was terminated by
divorce subsequent to the death of a close relative, even their kid, or a
lover, and the circumstances attendant thereto. In such a case, it becomes
materially important to get the details of that. It can't be assumed that
the death must pertain to a spouse. Had it been so simple, the advocate
probably would not have asked the question. Sometimes too smart witnesses
[sometimes tutored by thei advocate] have to be cornered.

________________________________________________

ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard.
ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
WITNESS: Guess?


****

This is simple. Suppose the individual concerned is the suspected murderer.
Suppose the witness answers to the question: It was a female. The whole
witness evidence crumbes!

[This is no flight of fancy. This does happen].

***********************

It is easy to discredit others or make fun of others. Common sense would
tell us that most others, including a professional person doing his job, are
not bereft of common sense. And, they really don't care about lay audience
as long as they know that they are doing their job professionally.

M C Gupta

================================================================

On 5/14/08, Anantha Narayanan  wrote:
>
>
> [This message contained attachments that have been removed.]
>
>
> These are from a book called Disorder in the American
> Courts, and are things people actually said in court,
> word for word, taken down and now published by court
> reporters who had the torment of staying calm while
> these exchanges were actually taking place.
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the
> impact?
> WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.
> ________________________________________________
>
> ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your
> memory at all?
> WITNESS: Yes.
> ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
>
> WITNESS: I forget.
> ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of
> something you forgot?
> ________________________________________________
>
> ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said
> to you that morning?
> WITNESS: He said, 'Where am I, Cathy?'
> ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?
> WITNESS: My name is Susan!
>
> ________________________________________________
>
> ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person
> dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the
> next morning?
> WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
> ________________________________________________
>
> ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the twenty-one-year-old,
> how old is he?
> WITNESS: Uh, he's twenty-one.
> ________________________________________________
>
> ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was
> taken?
> WITNESS: Are you shittin' me?
>
> ________________________________________________
>
> ATTORNEY: She had three children, right?
> WITNESS: Yes.
> ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
> WITNESS: None.
> ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
> WITNESS: Are you shittin' me? Your Honor, I think I
> need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?
> ________________________________________________
>
> ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
> WITNESS: By death.
> ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?
> WITNESS: Now whose death do you suppose terminated it?
> ________________________________________________
>
> ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
> WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard.
> ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
> WITNESS: Guess?
> ________________________________________________
>
> ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning
> pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your
> attorney?
> WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.
> ________________________________________________
>
> ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you
> performed on dead people?
> WITNESS: All my autopsies are performed on dead
> people. Would you like to rephrase that?
> ________________________________________________
>
> ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What
> school did you go to?
> WITNESS: Oral.
> ________________________________________________
>
> ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the
> body?
> WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
> ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
> WITNESS: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why
> I was doing an autopsy on him!
> ________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- And the best for last: ---
>
>
> ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy,
> did you check for a pulse?
> WITNESS: No.
>
> ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
> WITNESS: No.
> ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
> WITNESS: No.
> ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was
> alive when you began the autopsy?
> WITNESS: No.
> ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
> WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a
> jar.
> ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been
> alive, nevertheless?
> WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been
> alive and practicing law. <http://justfortimepazz.blogspot.com/>
>
> --
> This article was published in Just for time
> pazz<http://justfortimepazz.blogspot.com/2008/05/forgive-me-attorneys.html
> >
> --
> Regards
>
> Anantha Narayanan.T.L
> ---
> Check out my website at http://tlananthu.googlepages.com
>
> Check out my oracle related blogs at
> http://askanantha.blogspot.com
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> * Every 3000 papers you use requires a tree to be cut. Consider the
> environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> It is perfectly fine to compare apples and oranges when comparing an
> Orange
> 3G mobile that's a video phone with Apple iChat which is also a video
> phone
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To join/leave, use the form at:
> http://www.mumbai-central.com/nukkad/#options
> This list is archived at:
> http://www.mumbai-central.com/nukkad/archive.html
>
>


-- 
Prof. M C Gupta
MD (Medicine), MPH,  LL.M.,

Advocate & Health and Medico-legal Consultant

mcgupta44@gmail.com
www.writing.com/authors/mcgupta44
http://mcgupta44.blogspot.com/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Always proofread carefully to see if you any words out.       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To join/leave, use the form at: http://www.mumbai-central.com/nukkad/#options
This list is archived at: http://www.mumbai-central.com/nukkad/archive.html