From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Date: 26 Aug 92 08:05:08 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug26.013032.9752@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.003354.9670@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Aug24.212627.1521@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek) writes:
>>> Prosecution Witness:  Yes.
>>> A: Where did you get that WD40?
>>> PW: My purse.
>>> A: Do you usually carry WD40 in your purse?
>>> PW: No (perjury).
>>
>>(So? What is your point?)
>>
>>> A: Why did you have WD40 in your purse this particular day?
>>> PW: To fix my squeaky door (perjury).
>>
>>(See above)
>>
>>> A: Where is your squeaky door?
>>> PW: At home.
>>> A: When did you purchase the WD40 and do you have receipts etc?
>>
>>Objection your honor. Irrelevant under rule 401.
> 
> Judge: Objection overruled.  The time of purchase is both material
>        and probative are relevant evidence as to intent, and counsel
>        should recognize that. 

Not correct, and I am surprised that you do not see that. WHEN she bought it
is not relevant as the focus of questioning is when she put it in her purse.
If she bought it 10 years ago, so what? She claims to have put it in her purse
this morning, which is all the attorney for the defense is looking for.
Therefore it is irrelevant TO A FACT OF CONSEQUENCE OF THIS CASE!

Remember, all that this question can do, is prove that the defense is wrong IF
she has a receipt for it that morning--thus, there is no valid reason for
defense to ask it--unless he is trying to shoot himself in the foot. Therefore,
the REASON he is asking it MAKES it irrelevant.

Look to the purpose of the question, just like the purpose the out of court
statement is being offered, to find the intent of counsel. 


				Now cease these outbursts before I
>        have you bound and gagged in contempt of court.

1. They would have to be outbursts.
2. This buys an automatic mistrial in a criminal case. Judges can only go so
far--or haven't you gotten that far in your studies yet?

Nice try on both counts, but remember, what you see on T.V. is as real a
depiction of the legal profession as Love Story is a real depiction of college
romances.

> 
>>> PW: Several months before the incident.
>>> A: Ah, and why was it in your purse at the time of the incident, just
>>> 	after you went to a movie?
>>> PW: I forgot it there.
>>> A: Isn't it big and messy?
>>
>>Objection again your honor. Counsel is fully awary this is not permitted under
>>the relevant evidence rule. Further, counsel is trying to tesitify, or is
>>presenting his closing arguments a bit too early.
> 
> A: Your honor, the unwieldiness of a large can of WD-40 in a small purse
>    is certainly relevant.
> J: Correct, counsel.  Objection overruled.

We were talking TRIAL SIZE. Please get your facts straight before jumping in.

> 
>>> PW: No, not really.
>>> A: But it is always there?
>>
>>Irrelevant you honor. Please ask counsel to adhere to the rules of evidence.
> 
> J: Objection overruled.  The jury is entitled to know how long defendant
>    keeps WD-40 in her purse.  And it's "your honor."

WRONG! The question has been asked and answered. IF counsel wishes to impeach
her, he MUST now bring in extrinsic evidence to prove she has had it in there
for a while.

Please go back and READ the rules of evidence. 

As for my spelling mistake--that is the ONLY thing you have right.

DC

PS, Chicago School of law sure does a shoddy job of teaching people.
(Unless you are a first year, in which case the errors are understndable.)
Newsgroups: talk.rape,alt.flame