I’m rewatching Franklin & Bash, a show about two lawyers with ridiculous tactics. The title of this video made me think of them because that’s something they might likely do.
Aren’t rich people supposed to be able to afford a good lawyer? It almost seems like amber could lose, and appeal on the basis on incompetent representation.
So I haven’t been following this but I’ve seen a few clips here and there about this trial. Im curious about which way this case seems to be leaning at this point. Is it leaning more towards Jonny or amber side? The clips that I have seen seem to be pointing out the faults of ambers lawyers but I’m not sure if that is just the cherry picking of the internet or if it really is that bad of a trainwreck?
As stupid as that sounded, I get what he was doing. There has to be some process for this? I would think? Just because he asked the question, I don’t think hearsay is just suddenly allowed, right?
He’s not objecting to his own question, he’s objecting to the witness giving hearsay as an answer. The judge is probably tired and exasperated, and snaps a little too readily. I don’t think this is his worst mistake (and there have been many!) and I’m not sure it’s a fair framing of the video.
He’s not objecting to his question. He’s objecting to the butler saying the “doctor x said it was cuz of this”. The lawyer is asking the butler if he knew what caused the injury, not what someone else told him was the injury. It’s splitting hairs, but he’s trying to get him to say that he didn’t know.
Lawyer here, in my state that’s a proper objection. The witness doesn’t get to use hearsay statements regardless of how they come out. The better one would have been objection, non-responsive because the witness kept going after the witness had answered the yes or no question.
Serious only, please. Why can’t he object to the answer to his question if the witness provides hearsay testimony? Is it up to the judge to rule that it is hearsay and admonish the witness and strike it from the record?
Not that I’m a law expert but I was in the jury a few months ago and I’m pretty sure the lawyer is objecting to what the witness is saying. It’s not weird or unusual at all. There were dozens of such instances in the trial I sat in.
I think the lawyer’s kid made a wish last night.
I’m rewatching Franklin & Bash, a show about two lawyers with ridiculous tactics. The title of this video made me think of them because that’s something they might likely do.
Aren’t rich people supposed to be able to afford a good lawyer? It almost seems like amber could lose, and appeal on the basis on incompetent representation.
I never seen a trial so entertaining lol.
So I haven’t been following this but I’ve seen a few clips here and there about this trial. Im curious about which way this case seems to be leaning at this point. Is it leaning more towards Jonny or amber side? The clips that I have seen seem to be pointing out the faults of ambers lawyers but I’m not sure if that is just the cherry picking of the internet or if it really is that bad of a trainwreck?
As stupid as that sounded, I get what he was doing. There has to be some process for this? I would think? Just because he asked the question, I don’t think hearsay is just suddenly allowed, right?
He’s rightly objecting the answer, not his own question.
He’s not objecting to his own question, he’s objecting to the witness giving hearsay as an answer. The judge is probably tired and exasperated, and snaps a little too readily. I don’t think this is his worst mistake (and there have been many!) and I’m not sure it’s a fair framing of the video.
He’s not objecting to his question. He’s objecting to the butler saying the “doctor x said it was cuz of this”. The lawyer is asking the butler if he knew what caused the injury, not what someone else told him was the injury. It’s splitting hairs, but he’s trying to get him to say that he didn’t know.
I’d have loved to upvote this, but I must take a principled stand against emojis on video thumbnails.
Lawyer here, in my state that’s a proper objection. The witness doesn’t get to use hearsay statements regardless of how they come out. The better one would have been objection, non-responsive because the witness kept going after the witness had answered the yes or no question.
I mean it is hearsay, he just worded it incorrectly by objecting instead of moving the strike it from the record. Man is doing his job
Serious only, please. Why can’t he object to the answer to his question if the witness provides hearsay testimony? Is it up to the judge to rule that it is hearsay and admonish the witness and strike it from the record?
What the fuck is this thumbnail
Not that I’m a law expert but I was in the jury a few months ago and I’m pretty sure the lawyer is objecting to what the witness is saying. It’s not weird or unusual at all. There were dozens of such instances in the trial I sat in.
Isn’t he objecting to the answer?
Never in my life have I ever seen Reddit circlejerk videos about any other domestic abuse victim’s court proceedings this hard
I feel like he only studies bird law.
What a misleading title. This guy didn’t didn’t answer his question, he started telling him what people told him.
Amber’s lawyer always ask stupid questions…sometimes witness was stucked with her questions
Did she get the lawyer from Wish?
The gang become lawyers.