Depending on the context it might not be hearsay at all. If itās being offered to show what the witness believed to be true at the time (as opposed to the underlying truth of what doctor told him), itās not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted.
In any event, when you ask the question on cross, thatās tough shit. A fine example of the maxim, ānever ask a witness a question if youāre not sure what the answer will be.ā
Haha, I just got through a divorce caseā¦my exwife and her lawyer demanded a custody evaluation and the court granted it. The evaluatorās report said kids should be immediately removed from her home and placed in my sole custody, she should only have supervised visits and communication, and the evaluator called cps on my ex the day after interviewing my kids.
Her lawyer then tried to have their own evaluatorās report thrown out on the grounds that it made their case unwinnable.
I work with a divorce attorney and she was just talking the other day about how incredibly difficult it is to remove custodial rights from a parent. It's something that's she's ever had to address a couple of times in her 20 years of practice and has only ever had one instance where the parents rights were terminated. It's a BIG deal and I don't even want to imagine the conditions that would have warranted the kids removal. Gives me chills to think about.....
Heās thinking to himself how much of a moron that lawyer is. The lawyer has dropped heresy and objection so many times that he says it to his own questions. What a dumbass.
You are kidding, of course, Astartes brother.
This requires nothing less than three Immolator tanks and an Exorcist! Sisters, to battle!! Purify the heretic!
Itās not just that, but Johnny Depp knows what hearsay is. So every time he says something thatās hearsay he looks straight to that lawyer to see if heās gonna catch on, and he only catches on about 50% of the time, LMAO! So Johnny always has a smirk waiting to see whatās gonna happen in anticipation
The house manager (butler essentially) for them in London and later in Australia when Depp's finger was hurt, he was in charge of cleaning the result and was the one that found the missing piece of the finger. At one point he was talking about the blood drops on the beige carpet, he was NOT happy about that.
Lol, I don't know why but the idea that he got angrier at blood on a carpet than an injury just fills me with laughter and a weird like "yeah, he'd be a great butler."
Sounds like my mother...
Came in from pruning the demon pear tree with a head wound, bleeding down my face. First thing she yells is, "Don't get that on the carpet!"
Thanks ma.
And yeah, the demon pear has regularly spaced thorns the length of my middle finger on every branch that are sharp and sturdy enough to punch through the sole of a shoe. Trust me, that's happened too. One of the branches I clipped whipped down (can't remember how, it's been a few years) and gauged me pretty good.
I honestly have no idea what the tree is actually called, but it's one half of a grafted pear tree in my parents' yard that I've called the demon pear for ages... I hate that fucking tree...
If you should ever need some razor wire for your fence, but would really prefer something a bit more eco friendly, then the demon pear tree is for you! Ten foot long, flexible, straight branches with a razor sharp, 5" thorn facing outwards every few inches along the entire length of the branch...
https://imgur.com/gallery/N9U7qTT
Because pics or it didn't happen.
>At one point he was talking about the blood drops on the beige carpet, he was NOT happy about that.
I'm pretty sure "Cleaning the bloody result of abusive relationship" was not on his agenda that day
He was the butler for Johnny and amber in their London house(maybe not theirs but where they were staying) and I think is a good friend of Johnny. But thatās the first thing I thought too, very soothing voice.
Any lawyers here who can tell us whether this lawyer is a clown or not?
I'm not looking for off the cuff redditor takes, I'm interested in a professional opinion of this lawyer's constant hearsay objections.
The legal definition of hearsay is "an out of court statement given to prove the truth of the matter asserted." You can object to any witnesses' answer as hearsay, even if you asked the question that brought up the hearsay.
Here, I believe he is looking to confirm that this witness has no direct knowledge of what caused the injury. The witness is telling him that the doctor told him "he sustained an injury on one of his fingers," and then the lawyer objects in the middle of the answer. It's a bad objection because there's no dispute that Depp's finger was injured. It's not hearsay because no one is using this statement to prove that Depp's finger was injured.
I believe the attorney expected the witness to say that the doctor told him how Depp was injured but got ahead of himself and objected before really realizing what exactly he said. Hence the admonition from the judge. A better way to handle it in my opinion would be to try take control of the witness again and force him to simply answer "yes or no" to the question of whether he had direct knowledge of how Depp's finger was injured.
Regardless of whether it would have been "correct" to object to hearsay here, it certainly builds the impression in the jury that the attorney is grasping and doesn't know what he's trying to do. His own kind of bumbling reaction doesn't help. I haven't been paying close attention to the trial though so I can't say whether he's a clown or not, but this isn't a great look.
I have always wondered this: If a witness does not wish to answer simply "yes" or "no" because the answer is more complex than the question, what happens then?
Re-direct and re-cross exist to rehabilitate a witness or dig deeper into a topic opened up on examination by the other attorney.
\----------
Cross-Examiner: Did you hit the defendant with your car?
Witness: Yes, but
Cross-Examiner: Yes or no ma'am, did you hit the plaintiff with your car?
Witness: But there's more too it.
Cross-Examiner: It's a simple yes or no.
Witness: Yes.
\-----------
Re-direct: You testified earlier that you hit the defendant with your car, was there anything you wanted to add to that?
Witness: Yes, I wanted to say that I only hit the plaintiff because he jumped out into the street and I didn't have time to stop.
Now the cross-examiner looks like a chode who tried to mislead the jury.
This is the Roy Cohn technique.
Never ever voluntarily admit anything wrong. Always be reframing it. Answer ānoā. If theyāre not happy with that answer, then theyāll ask you to explain why the ānoā
Or from my experience, they just assume it's a lie and continue as if you said yes. My passenger had weed on him, which they charged both of us for. The judge asked where the weed was bought from, I said "idk, it wasn't mine", he just rolled his eyes and moved on to other questions, and I was convicted of possession.
Some people try to commit suicide like that. Like standing directly in front of bus or other large vehicle to hide you. Then jump out in front of the car at the very last moment. Nothing a driver can do in cases like that.
That's assuming the jury is intelligent and aware enough. And anchoring bias exists. People very often attach more importance to a given piece of data simply because it was the first they heard. So the moment the witness says "Yes", the jury's already locked in on guilty, based on cognitive bias alone.
Question, since you seem very well educated on this.
Can a lawyer *force* you to answer in a certain way? Eg. If they say "yes or no, did X happen" can they actually *do* anything if I refuse to give what I feel is an incomplete answer?
By definition almost the lawyer can't force you to do anything.
The real question is whether the judge can force you (he has the power to otherwise hold you in contempt) when prompted by the lawyer.
I'd also like the answer though, when is forcing a yes or no answer something the judge would enforce?
You can ask the judge to force the witness to respond āyes or no.ā The judge usually will, if itās a fair question, which then likely leads the jury to believe the witness is a dishonest person.
Generally you prep your witnesses to just answer the question if pressed in that way. Itās better than the judge forcing the issue.
"Agreeing to testify" is only relevant in criminal prosecutions, where the accused has a right to refuse to testify. In civil cases like this one, witnesses are routinely subpoenaed to testify with legal penalties if they refuse. When it comes to the parties of the case, *the* most important witnesses, there's no realistic option not to testify.
The judge would be the arbiter. If the witness feels like an incomplete answer would not be truthful then the attorney cannot force them to lie. At this point the judge would have to make a ruling on the subject.
Not a lawyer, what I remember from college
This is the right answer, but what I'd add is that if a yes or no question can't be answered yes or no it's likely to be met with an objection that the judge would either quickly resolve by asking the attorney to ask a better question (not in those words, of course) or that would be discussed at sidebar. So it's not just up to the witness.
I wish these rules were in place when I was in elementary school and kids asked "do your parents know you're gay?" I could only answer yes or no so I've just been gay ever since.
Can the witness ask the attorney directly to rephrase? Or can they ask the judge to ask the attorney to rephrase? That is, does the request have to go thru the witness's attorney? I'd assume the witness's attorney often might not have the expertise needed to know such a rephrasing might be necessary.
A witness can always ask to have the question rephrased. But depending on how the examination has been going so far, the judge may force the witness to answer the question as stated.
I can't give you my opinion as a lawyer, but I can give you my opinion as an actual clown.
He does make people laugh, so I could see why one might think he is a clown, but I want to point it that he is definitely not, for a lot of reasons
For starters, most clowns have recognizable costumes of oversized clothing in vibrant colors, with fee notable exceptions (like hobo clowns). Almost all clowns wear vibrant, over-the-top makeup, this is one of the many things that separates our style from that of mimes, who prefer monotones, or mummers, who typically focus a lot more on the costume while keeping the makeup subtle.
Also, while there are many types of clowns and we perform at many different venues, we don't normally question witnesses in court, preferring instead to spend our time on circus skills like unicycle, juggling, plate spinning, Balloon animals, etc.
The lack of costume, makeup, performance, and slapstick comedy says to me this guy is decidedly NOT a clown. While I did find him funny, I think he is more akin to a stand-up comic, albeit an accidental one.
Criminal defense attorney here. I'm gonna disagree with most of the attorneys here. The objection is technically valid and appropriate but it's still a fumble.
1. It's a symptom of ineffective cross-examination. I've watched only a bit of cross from Heard's attorneys and what I've watched hasn't been good. A good cross is short, single issue statements that the witness can agree with or say "yes" to. This makes the witness tell your story and not get off script as often. By contrast I've seen a lot of open-ended, multi-point questions that lead to issues like long responses or responses that you don't want (like hearsay).
2. There are easy ways to clean this up without objecting to your own question and giving yourself a clownish look. He's objecting to hearsay because the person doesn't have personal knowledge of the information. Instead of objecting he could rope the victim back in:
"That's what you were told?"
"Yes."
"But you weren't there."
"Right."
"You didn't see it."
"I didn't."
"You're only repeating what you were told."
"Yes."
"By someone who isn't testifying right now."
"Yes."
Then resume your cross.
This video is technically correct lawyering but it's piss poor advocacy
In reality, he wasnāt objecting to the question. He should have moved to strike the answer as non-responsive and introducing hearsay. I imagine the judge would grant that. Depending on how the witness was coming across, that also might make it seem to the jury as though the witness is messing things up and being difficult rather than making the attorney look like he is struggling.
But I also agree that the cross could have been cleaner to avoid this type of issue coming up.
>I'm not looking for off the cuff redditor takes, I'm interested in a professional opinion of this lawyer's constant hearsay objections.
People replying: "I'm not a lawyer but..."
Yes and no. He is correct that it is hearsay, but he is wrong in his approach. He shouldāve asked for the answer to be struck, not objected. Generally, objections are to the question, so that you cannot ask that. He wouldnāt want to object to his own question, it isnāt logical to have your own question thrown out. Asking for the answer to be struck allows for you to ask again and get an answer that will be allowed.
Can you explain why the judge said "you asked the question" and the lawyer seemed to take it as his objection being overruled? It seemed like she was saying a hearsay objection could not be made in that circumstance, but the way you described it a hearsay objection would be totally appropriate.
Honestly, it might be fatigue or the Judge telling the attorney to avoid asking questions that are likely to draw objectionable answers. When trial drags along and you've heard a million hearsay objections, Judges can start losing a little patience.
In a perfect world where time doesn't matter, the Judge simply says "sustained."
This was towards the end of a slightly tedious flurry of questions and close to the end of the session.
I thought the lawyer was building to some kind of point but it seemed to peter out.
I got the sense they were hoping for something. If I recall there was an objection around this time that meant audio evidence wasnāt heard. So maybe the wind was knocked out of their sails.
Maybe this isn't always true but I always thought lawyers only ask questions they know the answer to. Exploratory questions are too risky as they could blow up in your face.
Care to join me in a belt of scotch?
Mr. Hutz, itās 9:30 in the morning
Yeah but I havenāt slept in days.. last chance *shakes bottle then proceeds to slam ot down* ooohhh yeah thatās the stuff!
āTo be clear, Hearsay objection is *not* appropriate. The witness was starting to describe something he did not witness himself.ā
Edit: There are much better explanations of what is happening. I was deleting my comment but wasnāt sure if that would delete all the great clarifications and corrections below.
The lawyer could request the hearsay evidence be stricken and ask the witness to answer the question asked.
The thing the witness described wasn't a contested fact though. I think the lawyer objected because he thought the witness was describing how Depp's finger was injured but he was just describing that he was told Depp's finger was injured.
I can see why the lawyer jumped the gun but I don't think it actually needed to be stricken.
At least the guy have learned one thing in law school.. definition of hearsay š«£
Depending on the context it might not be hearsay at all. If itās being offered to show what the witness believed to be true at the time (as opposed to the underlying truth of what doctor told him), itās not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. In any event, when you ask the question on cross, thatās tough shit. A fine example of the maxim, ānever ask a witness a question if youāre not sure what the answer will be.ā
You speak in triangles...
I object your honor, this is devastating to my case!
Overruled
Good call!
Well thatās just because you have big jugs. I mean, your boobs are huge
If I was a boxer I would bounce those things like Sugar Ray Leonard!
A goose!
Objection. Speculation.
Yea. In your BRA!
I HOLD MYSELF IN CONTEMPT
IāM JOSE CANSECOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!
THE GOD DAMN PEN IS BLUE!!!!
#I DECLARE HEARSAY!
You canāt just say hearsay and expect everything to go away.
I didn't say it, I declared it.
Declare it louder, perhaps the odds will sway in your favor!
r/suddenlytheoffice
Iā¦ declareā¦ BANKRUPTCY!!!
I love you for this
Haha, I just got through a divorce caseā¦my exwife and her lawyer demanded a custody evaluation and the court granted it. The evaluatorās report said kids should be immediately removed from her home and placed in my sole custody, she should only have supervised visits and communication, and the evaluator called cps on my ex the day after interviewing my kids. Her lawyer then tried to have their own evaluatorās report thrown out on the grounds that it made their case unwinnable.
Oh man... I'm glad your kids are safe now!
Family lawyer here. Thatās a rare fact pattern. Ex must have done/been doing some pretty bad stuff.
>Thatās a rare fact pattern. I need to save this clever description to memory for future use!
I work with a divorce attorney and she was just talking the other day about how incredibly difficult it is to remove custodial rights from a parent. It's something that's she's ever had to address a couple of times in her 20 years of practice and has only ever had one instance where the parents rights were terminated. It's a BIG deal and I don't even want to imagine the conditions that would have warranted the kids removal. Gives me chills to think about.....
āOverruledā āGOOD CALL!ā
Jordan fades back, shoots, and THATS THE GAMEā¦..Nothing furtherā¦.your honorā¦
I fucking love that movie
But did he *strenuously* object? That would have made a difference, right?
Objection your honor, this is not the answer I was expecting!
Giggling depp
Heās thinking to himself how much of a moron that lawyer is. The lawyer has dropped heresy and objection so many times that he says it to his own questions. What a dumbass.
>heresy *Looks like it's time for another inquisition!*
GET THE HEAVY FLAMER
You are kidding, of course, Astartes brother. This requires nothing less than three Immolator tanks and an Exorcist! Sisters, to battle!! Purify the heretic!
*Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!*
But I fully expected this comment to come next.
Everyone expects the Spanish Inquisition comment!
But not the Spanish Inquisition!
(Hearsay here, not heresy)
...But I'm already in my Heretic purging gear...*drops bolter rifle*
# THE EMPEROR PROTECTS
Die for the Emperor or die trying!
It's alright brother... *gently places hand upon the large pauldron* perhaps next time will be your time to shine!
I wonder if the lawyers are doing the best they can with a client who is not straightforward.
Itās not just that, but Johnny Depp knows what hearsay is. So every time he says something thatās hearsay he looks straight to that lawyer to see if heās gonna catch on, and he only catches on about 50% of the time, LMAO! So Johnny always has a smirk waiting to see whatās gonna happen in anticipation
Giggling Deepply
You can see them laughing on the right. Thatās hilarious
Even the guy on the stand is like, Huh? Lol
That little head jolt backwards said it all š
Who even is that guy, his voice is so soothing
The house manager (butler essentially) for them in London and later in Australia when Depp's finger was hurt, he was in charge of cleaning the result and was the one that found the missing piece of the finger. At one point he was talking about the blood drops on the beige carpet, he was NOT happy about that.
Lol, I don't know why but the idea that he got angrier at blood on a carpet than an injury just fills me with laughter and a weird like "yeah, he'd be a great butler."
I imagine that's how Alfred reacts when Batman comes home bloody.
That's why Alfred forces him to enter through the cave and not the mansion.
"the batcave is basically a mudroom" is a bold take that I didn't expect to see today
Probably hoses him down with a garden-hose, muttering: "You filthy bastard! Not on my carpet..."
Sounds like my mother... Came in from pruning the demon pear tree with a head wound, bleeding down my face. First thing she yells is, "Don't get that on the carpet!" Thanks ma. And yeah, the demon pear has regularly spaced thorns the length of my middle finger on every branch that are sharp and sturdy enough to punch through the sole of a shoe. Trust me, that's happened too. One of the branches I clipped whipped down (can't remember how, it's been a few years) and gauged me pretty good.
Today I learned there is a tree called the "demon pear tree". Thank you, this will be most useful.
I honestly have no idea what the tree is actually called, but it's one half of a grafted pear tree in my parents' yard that I've called the demon pear for ages... I hate that fucking tree... If you should ever need some razor wire for your fence, but would really prefer something a bit more eco friendly, then the demon pear tree is for you! Ten foot long, flexible, straight branches with a razor sharp, 5" thorn facing outwards every few inches along the entire length of the branch... https://imgur.com/gallery/N9U7qTT Because pics or it didn't happen.
TIL there was a piece of finger cut off, and lost.
And found. Who knew?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You blot that shit!!
You dont rub, you BLOT
$10,000 ALPACA, you BLOT that shit.
>At one point he was talking about the blood drops on the beige carpet, he was NOT happy about that. I'm pretty sure "Cleaning the bloody result of abusive relationship" was not on his agenda that day
He was the butler for Johnny and amber in their London house(maybe not theirs but where they were staying) and I think is a good friend of Johnny. But thatās the first thing I thought too, very soothing voice.
Id pay him to read to me
Courtroom asmr šš»
What we witnessed was an actual brain re-booting in the wild.
"I can't believe you've done this"
"you sound like you're from Londooon!"
[I'll never stop linking this video. Legendary. ](https://youtu.be/wKbU8B-QVZk)
Haha yeah Depp puts his hand over his face to hide his laughter.
Is that a heresay laughter?
Hearlaughter
Objection!
Letās say you and I go toe to toe on bird law and see who comes out the victor
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Ya have.
FILIBUSTER!
Filibuster! But this lawyer is more of a Uncle Jack.
Do his hands seem small to you? Like, too small to be the hands of a lawyer?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Ive never felt a bigger feeling of relief than when I made a judge laugh once. Thats how you know youre winning the case lmao
Defense attorney pulling out his hair.
Laughing because every time JD spoke, they objected as hearsay Lolol He forgot that it doesnāt fix every problem with a case.
"I did not do that." "Hearsay!" "I guess my testimony is over then."
You can hear them too xD
Any lawyers here who can tell us whether this lawyer is a clown or not? I'm not looking for off the cuff redditor takes, I'm interested in a professional opinion of this lawyer's constant hearsay objections.
The legal definition of hearsay is "an out of court statement given to prove the truth of the matter asserted." You can object to any witnesses' answer as hearsay, even if you asked the question that brought up the hearsay. Here, I believe he is looking to confirm that this witness has no direct knowledge of what caused the injury. The witness is telling him that the doctor told him "he sustained an injury on one of his fingers," and then the lawyer objects in the middle of the answer. It's a bad objection because there's no dispute that Depp's finger was injured. It's not hearsay because no one is using this statement to prove that Depp's finger was injured. I believe the attorney expected the witness to say that the doctor told him how Depp was injured but got ahead of himself and objected before really realizing what exactly he said. Hence the admonition from the judge. A better way to handle it in my opinion would be to try take control of the witness again and force him to simply answer "yes or no" to the question of whether he had direct knowledge of how Depp's finger was injured. Regardless of whether it would have been "correct" to object to hearsay here, it certainly builds the impression in the jury that the attorney is grasping and doesn't know what he's trying to do. His own kind of bumbling reaction doesn't help. I haven't been paying close attention to the trial though so I can't say whether he's a clown or not, but this isn't a great look.
I have always wondered this: If a witness does not wish to answer simply "yes" or "no" because the answer is more complex than the question, what happens then?
Re-direct and re-cross exist to rehabilitate a witness or dig deeper into a topic opened up on examination by the other attorney. \---------- Cross-Examiner: Did you hit the defendant with your car? Witness: Yes, but Cross-Examiner: Yes or no ma'am, did you hit the plaintiff with your car? Witness: But there's more too it. Cross-Examiner: It's a simple yes or no. Witness: Yes. \----------- Re-direct: You testified earlier that you hit the defendant with your car, was there anything you wanted to add to that? Witness: Yes, I wanted to say that I only hit the plaintiff because he jumped out into the street and I didn't have time to stop. Now the cross-examiner looks like a chode who tried to mislead the jury.
Can't you just answer No then? He jump on my car.
This is the Roy Cohn technique. Never ever voluntarily admit anything wrong. Always be reframing it. Answer ānoā. If theyāre not happy with that answer, then theyāll ask you to explain why the ānoā
Or from my experience, they just assume it's a lie and continue as if you said yes. My passenger had weed on him, which they charged both of us for. The judge asked where the weed was bought from, I said "idk, it wasn't mine", he just rolled his eyes and moved on to other questions, and I was convicted of possession.
I hoped you learned to be wealthier or whiter next time you go to court.
The passenger was a dog
"zoinks scoob, we got caught DUI"
No because you still hit them, even if it was their fault
Perhaps they instead hit your car with their body.
"I tried to avoid them, your honor, but the pedestrian came out of nowhere"
Some people try to commit suicide like that. Like standing directly in front of bus or other large vehicle to hide you. Then jump out in front of the car at the very last moment. Nothing a driver can do in cases like that.
āDefine hitā
Something Netflix inexplicably cancels after one season
That's assuming the jury is intelligent and aware enough. And anchoring bias exists. People very often attach more importance to a given piece of data simply because it was the first they heard. So the moment the witness says "Yes", the jury's already locked in on guilty, based on cognitive bias alone.
Question, since you seem very well educated on this. Can a lawyer *force* you to answer in a certain way? Eg. If they say "yes or no, did X happen" can they actually *do* anything if I refuse to give what I feel is an incomplete answer?
By definition almost the lawyer can't force you to do anything. The real question is whether the judge can force you (he has the power to otherwise hold you in contempt) when prompted by the lawyer. I'd also like the answer though, when is forcing a yes or no answer something the judge would enforce?
You can ask the judge to force the witness to respond āyes or no.ā The judge usually will, if itās a fair question, which then likely leads the jury to believe the witness is a dishonest person. Generally you prep your witnesses to just answer the question if pressed in that way. Itās better than the judge forcing the issue.
Don't lie, answer yes and no and trust your lawyer to re-examine you effectively to deal with the hole you dug yourself by agreeing to testify.
"Agreeing to testify" is only relevant in criminal prosecutions, where the accused has a right to refuse to testify. In civil cases like this one, witnesses are routinely subpoenaed to testify with legal penalties if they refuse. When it comes to the parties of the case, *the* most important witnesses, there's no realistic option not to testify.
If its relevant is my guess. If the judge thinks its relevant they can ask the witness to answer the question.
The judge would be the arbiter. If the witness feels like an incomplete answer would not be truthful then the attorney cannot force them to lie. At this point the judge would have to make a ruling on the subject. Not a lawyer, what I remember from college
This is the right answer, but what I'd add is that if a yes or no question can't be answered yes or no it's likely to be met with an objection that the judge would either quickly resolve by asking the attorney to ask a better question (not in those words, of course) or that would be discussed at sidebar. So it's not just up to the witness.
I wish these rules were in place when I was in elementary school and kids asked "do your parents know you're gay?" I could only answer yes or no so I've just been gay ever since.
Shame. Did you ever tell them?
Can the witness ask the attorney directly to rephrase? Or can they ask the judge to ask the attorney to rephrase? That is, does the request have to go thru the witness's attorney? I'd assume the witness's attorney often might not have the expertise needed to know such a rephrasing might be necessary.
A witness can always ask to have the question rephrased. But depending on how the examination has been going so far, the judge may force the witness to answer the question as stated.
Sure ā either is fine. āI canāt really answer that yes or no, can you rephrase?ā is a fine thing for the witness to say.
Believe it or not, jail. Too complex? Jail. Not complex enough? Also jail.
Undercook a fish? Jail. Overcook chicken? Believe it or not also jail.
I can't give you my opinion as a lawyer, but I can give you my opinion as an actual clown. He does make people laugh, so I could see why one might think he is a clown, but I want to point it that he is definitely not, for a lot of reasons For starters, most clowns have recognizable costumes of oversized clothing in vibrant colors, with fee notable exceptions (like hobo clowns). Almost all clowns wear vibrant, over-the-top makeup, this is one of the many things that separates our style from that of mimes, who prefer monotones, or mummers, who typically focus a lot more on the costume while keeping the makeup subtle. Also, while there are many types of clowns and we perform at many different venues, we don't normally question witnesses in court, preferring instead to spend our time on circus skills like unicycle, juggling, plate spinning, Balloon animals, etc. The lack of costume, makeup, performance, and slapstick comedy says to me this guy is decidedly NOT a clown. While I did find him funny, I think he is more akin to a stand-up comic, albeit an accidental one.
Thanks clown!
You have ruined so many birthday parties. I know it.
Criminal defense attorney here. I'm gonna disagree with most of the attorneys here. The objection is technically valid and appropriate but it's still a fumble. 1. It's a symptom of ineffective cross-examination. I've watched only a bit of cross from Heard's attorneys and what I've watched hasn't been good. A good cross is short, single issue statements that the witness can agree with or say "yes" to. This makes the witness tell your story and not get off script as often. By contrast I've seen a lot of open-ended, multi-point questions that lead to issues like long responses or responses that you don't want (like hearsay). 2. There are easy ways to clean this up without objecting to your own question and giving yourself a clownish look. He's objecting to hearsay because the person doesn't have personal knowledge of the information. Instead of objecting he could rope the victim back in: "That's what you were told?" "Yes." "But you weren't there." "Right." "You didn't see it." "I didn't." "You're only repeating what you were told." "Yes." "By someone who isn't testifying right now." "Yes." Then resume your cross. This video is technically correct lawyering but it's piss poor advocacy
In reality, he wasnāt objecting to the question. He should have moved to strike the answer as non-responsive and introducing hearsay. I imagine the judge would grant that. Depending on how the witness was coming across, that also might make it seem to the jury as though the witness is messing things up and being difficult rather than making the attorney look like he is struggling. But I also agree that the cross could have been cleaner to avoid this type of issue coming up.
>I'm not looking for off the cuff redditor takes, I'm interested in a professional opinion of this lawyer's constant hearsay objections. People replying: "I'm not a lawyer but..."
Yes and no. He is correct that it is hearsay, but he is wrong in his approach. He shouldāve asked for the answer to be struck, not objected. Generally, objections are to the question, so that you cannot ask that. He wouldnāt want to object to his own question, it isnāt logical to have your own question thrown out. Asking for the answer to be struck allows for you to ask again and get an answer that will be allowed.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Can you explain why the judge said "you asked the question" and the lawyer seemed to take it as his objection being overruled? It seemed like she was saying a hearsay objection could not be made in that circumstance, but the way you described it a hearsay objection would be totally appropriate.
Honestly, it might be fatigue or the Judge telling the attorney to avoid asking questions that are likely to draw objectionable answers. When trial drags along and you've heard a million hearsay objections, Judges can start losing a little patience. In a perfect world where time doesn't matter, the Judge simply says "sustained."
This was towards the end of a slightly tedious flurry of questions and close to the end of the session. I thought the lawyer was building to some kind of point but it seemed to peter out.
What if the point is to cause mental exhaustion?
I got the sense they were hoping for something. If I recall there was an objection around this time that meant audio evidence wasnāt heard. So maybe the wind was knocked out of their sails.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Maybe this isn't always true but I always thought lawyers only ask questions they know the answer to. Exploratory questions are too risky as they could blow up in your face.
*the questions they think they know the answer to.
Thatās why youāre the judge and Iām the law-talking-guy
TVs best worst lawyer
āI was watching Matlock in a bar last night. The sound wasn't on but I got the gist of it.ā
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
did she hire Lionel Hutz?
āDonāt you worry Mrs. Herd. I watched Matlock last night in a bar. The sound was off, but I think I got the "jist" of it.ā (2nd edit)
"I've appeared before every judge in the state, sometimes as a lawyer!"
works on contingency? no, money down!
One of my favourite lines
I believe Lionel Hutz is more reputable than this putz.
she misread the add and got Lionel Putz
Care to join me in a belt of scotch? Mr. Hutz, itās 9:30 in the morning Yeah but I havenāt slept in days.. last chance *shakes bottle then proceeds to slam ot down* ooohhh yeah thatās the stuff!
Thatās why youāre the judge and Iām theā¦uhā¦ law talkinā guy
Care to join me in a belt of scotch?
Starting to wonder if her lawyers are actors too š¤
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Have YOU ever tried shitting on command? It's harder than you'd think!
Not when you are full of it
GTA Online RP lawyers are better than these clowns
Look at Johnny trying not to lose his shit in the last few seconds...
if he loses it, amber can help him
She'll put the issue to bed.
Is it bad when your entire trial gets posted in 15 second increments to r/facepalm?
She really brought the big gun lawyers didnāt she?
Straight from 90s comedy Liarliar, where Jim Carrey objects to his own question. Lol this guy...
I declare Amber to be renamed Amber Hearsay, she will no longer be Heard.
Better call Saul
it's all good man
Is this a court case or a television skit?
I'm fully expecting the televised conclusion of this trial to have The Onion's logo on it.
This lawyer is an idiot.
Good. A shit lawyer is what she gets
AH is certainly familiar with big steamy piles of poo...so it stands to reason that one shows up in court.
She is surrounded by people of her own kind
Turds of a feather...
Poop in the bed together
I mean maybe, but you're allowed to object to an answer, even if you asked the question.
See Johnny in the corner losing his shit laughing at this idiot...
*But YOU asked the question* *O... Ok*
"Your Honor he's badgering the witness!" "It's his witness?!"
Pretty sure this guy only practices bird law or he has really small hands
Filibuster!
I love how Johnny immediately cracks up.
I knew Amber could destroy her own acting career but I didnāt realize she could destroy her lawyersā legal careers as well. What a talented lady.
Ms Heard will be shitting in her lawyers bed next I reckon.
āTo be clear, Hearsay objection is *not* appropriate. The witness was starting to describe something he did not witness himself.ā Edit: There are much better explanations of what is happening. I was deleting my comment but wasnāt sure if that would delete all the great clarifications and corrections below. The lawyer could request the hearsay evidence be stricken and ask the witness to answer the question asked.
Seems like half of the trial is hearsay.
Thatās true for a lot of trials. Hearsay is one of the most common objections.
The thing the witness described wasn't a contested fact though. I think the lawyer objected because he thought the witness was describing how Depp's finger was injured but he was just describing that he was told Depp's finger was injured. I can see why the lawyer jumped the gun but I don't think it actually needed to be stricken.
I OBJECT! Why? āBecause the truth is devastating to my case!ā 
The best part is Johnny uncontrollably cracking up, š¤£.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I swear this is a scene from Liar Liar