who dunnit (and why)
Finn was speculating as to the state of Will's drunkenness! (But you will only get this point if you point out that there's no basis upon which Finn could know Will well enough to make that kind of judgement about him.)
The cross examining attorney asks a question of a witness that is in their witness statement but which was not in the direct examination. The opposing council does NOT object to scope. Was this a good objection? Why?
Yes- 611 (b)-- a crossing attorney can ask questions of a witness that is in their witness statement but not in their direct
Charlie Heaton: And I heard from Chief Shaw that he told Finn Wolfhard (via email) to check on the safety of the highway situation.
OC: objection: speculation
What is the more accurate objection?
it's hearsay yeehaw
Billy: (referring to the scary clown room) And then I said to Will: "Let go! Can't you see that he's beyond terrified!!!!"
OC: Objection: Hearsay!
What's the exception?
Excited Utterance!
Direct: You went to the grocery store that evening with your sister, right?
Leading question
The defense brings up the fact that Finn Wolfhard obtained liability insurance for H3, something which proves their guilt, because what were they trying to insure against?
The plaintiff objects. Why?
(Must name the number of the rule)
411 (Cannot bring up liability insurance)
The crossing attorney asks a question that has already been answered in the direct.
Directing attorney: Objection: Asked and answered
Was this a good objection? Why?
No, this is allowed!!!!!!
Directing attorney: And how far did Dacre chase Billy?
Billy: Well I think more than the limit of 10 feet, that's for sure.
OC: Speculation
What objection would be more accurate?
Lack of personal knowledge!!
Charlie Heaton: The conclusion of our report stated that Will Byers was negligent.
OC: Objection: Hearsay!
What's the exception?
THAT is public record oof
Cross of Max Mayfield: But don't you agree that you're actually just selfish, and only want to tell the truth when it benefits you?
What objection should be made here?
Argumentative
Charlie Heaton brings up the fact that the location of the exit has moved this year to the other side of the building. The crossing attorney of Charlie Heaton objects. To what and why?
Subsequent remedial measures!
Crossing attorney of Dacre: You were a killer clown at H3, correct?
Dacre: Well that's super funny because I'm actually a farmer and we all know that, traditionally, farmers and clowns do not mix.
The crossing attorney objects to Dacre's unresponsive answer. Was this a good objection?
No, rephrase but do not object to unresponsiveness-- if it persists, asks the judge to ask the witness to answer more directly.
Dacre: I met Will Byers while we were on the battle ball team at Tabard University. It was mighty unfortunate because he got the lead position instead of me. It makes me upset to this day. But it's okay, because I learned a lot from that experience. So it's totally not that I hold anything against Will Byers.
OC: Objection: Unfair extrapolation
What objection would be more accurate?
Narration/Narrative Answer
Plaintiff tries to enter the Hawkins House of Horrors Volunteer form (exhibit 7)
OC: Objection: Hearsay!
What's the exception?
It's a record of regularly conducted (business) activity!
It's also an admission by a party opponent I think
Cross examiner of Robin Buckley: Asks as to the drinking practices of Will Byers, including the kinds of "celebratory moments" in which he would have been drinking. The directing attorney of Robin Buckley objects to relevance. What is the correct objection to make in this instance (based on case materials).
Speculation! Robin's statement only refers vaguely to "celebratory events", and while Robin could make a reasonable inference as to what those would be for Will, Robin just as easily could not. (It's an objection worth making)
The crossing attorney of Billy references the contents of the safety waiver. No exhibit has yet been entered in the trial. Will's directing lawyer objects. To what and why?
Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence. Billy's crossing attorney referenced the contents of the waiver, which are not known in Billy's witness statement, and are only contained within the exhibit that is the safety waiver. To reference its contents, the crossing attorney would need to introduce the waiver into evidence.
Cross examiner of Robin Buckley: Asks as to the drinking practices of Will Byers, including the kinds of "celebratory moments" in which he would have been drinking. The directing attorney of Robin Buckley objects to relevance. Was this a good objection?
No, because a crossing attorney is able to ask questions regarding the reputation of a person or a witness's opinion of that person in order to prove the character of the person being asked about (405a).
think of 2 scenarios:
1) a crossing attorney asks a question with literally any relevance to the case
2) a crossing attorney asks the name of Billy's dog
Which one, if either, deserves an objection? If so, what is it?
2-- Relevance!
It's really likely not relevant
Billy: And my mother told me that Will and I have been best friends for longer that I can remember.
Objection: Hearsay
What's the exception?
It's a statement of personal history that's relevant to the case even if Billy has no personal knowledge of it !
Let's say (hypotethetically) when Dacre pulled a prank on that girl when he was younger, she actually got really hurt and Dacre was sent to juvie. The plaintiff brings this up in their cross of Dacre.
Defense attorney objects. To what and why?
Rule 609: Impeachment by Evidence of a Conviction of Crime details why this is generally not admissible-- subclause d clarifies why you specifically can't ask this information of "juvenile adjudication".
The plaintiff asks Finn Wolfhard as to whether or not he practices paganism (so as to prove that the haunted house would be overly scary or something)
Defense makes TWO objections-- what are they?
1) Rule 610-- cannot invoke religious beliefs or opinions
2) Unfair extrapolation-- this has nothing to do with Finn's witness statement lol
Think about our case materials
Direct of Max Mayfield: And why did you get this new job at the Des Moines Tribune?
OC: objection: speculation
Was this a good objection?
No, the cross of Max also asks Max to speculate to this idea
Even if it's with slightly different wording
:)
Directing attorney of Robin:
So you didn't stop Will, even though you knew that someone in his group smelled of alcohol, and its your job as a volunteer of the haunted house to enforce the rules?
choices of objection: speculation, compound, or argumentative
which one is it?
tis a compound question (it doesn't really ask for speculation nor is it truly argumentative)
Max: And Olivia said: “Max is a reporter. We have to be careful what we say and do in their presence. You’ve seen some of the harsh stories they have run in the paper before, and we don’t want that for our event.” And from that I concluded she, and rest of the Powhatan County board, are not to be trusted.
OC: Objection: hearsay!
What's the exception?
Technically, Max is quoting Olivia to prove the reputation/character of the Powhatan county board and the leaders of the haunted house, which IS an exception (though probably not a great one sorry)
The plaintiff tries to enter the clown posse texts
What objection would you make, and more importantly, why. Please also pre-empt the exception or you will not get the points.
Hearsay BECAUSE:
- we don't know the individual identities of the clowns (they aren't explained in the exhibit or in witness statements), so it cannot represent the individuals of the party opponent (the defense).