Tag: cross-examination

Depp v. Heard: Why did an American jury reach a different decision than the English judge?

We now know that in Virginia it is defamatory to call Johnny Depp a wife beater, whereas in England, at least for the time being, it is not.

How could it be that on what was the same issue two courts could arrive at such contradictory verdicts?

The American verdict appears itself somewhat contradictory. Whilst finding mainly in favour of Depp, it did also make one finding in Heard’s favour. On one discrete issue, they found that she had not set up Depp in an “ambush” to fabricate hoax allegations of abuse. But that was a small crumb of comfort – albeit it has saved her $2M – in a decision that otherwise saw the jury exonerate Depp on the central allegation that he was a domestic abuser Continue reading “Depp v. Heard: Why did an American jury reach a different decision than the English judge?”

Pozner & Dodd: Cross-Examination Science and Techniques. A review

Cross-Examination: Science and Techniques

Larry S. Pozner and Roger J. Dodd

This is quite simply the greatest book on cross-examination that I have ever come across and worth every penny of the hundreds of pounds that it will cost you to buy. It is not easily available. The latest (third) edition is currently unavailable on Amazon, although rather strangely several second editions are, priced at about £600.00 new, or between £330.00 and £745.00 second hand. I was distraught when, just a few days after my copy finally arrived (stamped ex libris Filosa & Filosa attorneys at law 501 Main Street, Truth or Consequences, New Mexico) I left it in a taxi. Fortunately, thanks to the honesty and good sense of a London black cab driver, instead of flogging it on the dark web, or sending it back to Truth or Consequences, like a forensic pathologist he traced me through dental records, in this case a dentist’s receipt, in the same bag. Thank goodness for rotten British teeth.

It is written for an American audience, so some of the terminology is a little obscure. They have “direct” examination, we have “evidence in chief,” they “impeach” a witness, we “contradict” them, and so on. There are references to procedures that we no longer have in England and Wales, such as cross-examination at committal hearings. Voire dires, motions in limine and other pre-trial manoeuvres that we either don’t have, or that mean something different, crop up regularly. Our courts don’t have “podiums” to and from which counsel can walk while asking questions, more’s the pity perhaps. Continue reading “Pozner & Dodd: Cross-Examination Science and Techniques. A review”

Nigel Pascoe’s Guide For Young Advocates: Essential reading for all aspiring advocates

Nigel Pascoe QC – whom I have been proud to call a colleague for more years than I care to remember, which is still only a fraction of the time that he has been at the height of his profession – adopts Norman Birkett’s definition of advocacy:

“Harnessing your personality in support of a cause.”

Pascoe: “be yourself or risk being a phoney.”

His advice to young advocates is the not uncommon advice given to nervous interview candidates: “be yourself.”

“If you try to be someone else,” says Pascoe, “it will sound phoney. It is phoney.” Continue reading “Nigel Pascoe’s Guide For Young Advocates: Essential reading for all aspiring advocates”

Are 75% of rape complainants cross-examined about their sexual history?

There was a striking headline in today’s Times:

Sexual history of rape victims still being put on trial

Many people will not have a Times Subscription, so if they saw the story at all online they would have seen only the headline, a picture of Ched Evans, and the first sentence of the story which asserted:

Victims of alleged rape or sexual assault are questioned about their sexual history at trial in nearly three out of four cases, a survey shows.

Those able to read the full story would have read that:

“Only one in four alleged victims did not have to face such examination.” Continue reading “Are 75% of rape complainants cross-examined about their sexual history?”

Anna Tregorran is making heavy weather of defending Helen Titchener in The Archers Trial

Half the country was glued to their radios on Sunday night for the first day in the Archers Trial.

Prosecution counsel’s opening was suave and persuasive, whilst being perfectly fair – Julian Bywater correctly stressed, for example, that it was for the prosecution to disprove self-defence not for the defence to prove it.

Listeners were more concerned to see how Helen’s barrister, the troubled and intermittently drink-sodden Anna Tregorran, would rise to the occasion.

In preparing for the trial of the century over the past few months Miss Tregorran has certainly not been lacking in commitment: she has visited her client in prison innumerable times (for almost all of which she won’t be paid a penny).

On the other hand she has been remarkably unsuccessful on the two occasions when she actually appeared in court. She made an inexplicably unsuccessful bail application which has led to Helen spending the last 5 months in custody; and her performance in the family court was so lamentable that she was lucky not to be reported to the Bar Standards Board for conducting a case without the appropriate knowledge and expertise. Continue reading “Anna Tregorran is making heavy weather of defending Helen Titchener in The Archers Trial”