I am a lawyer and this is the first time I have seen this clip. the prosecutor's leading objection is a joke. You can ask leading questions on a cross examination.
Quite so. And the same comment could be made in respect of the prosecutor's final objection, "Counsel is trying to impugn the witness." That must be a common aim in cross examination (and presumably a legitimate one, if there is supporting evidence for it.) Also, the prosecutor's objection, "Leading," is such an obvious error that it makes me think it was a fluffed line by the actress and that the line in the script was probably, "inadmissible prior bad acts." Otherwise, the defense counsel's response, "Goes to establishing his pattern of behaviour while inebriated," makes no sense. In any case, fiction is not required to be true to life or the law, and often isn't. On the other hand, subject to remembering the above limitation, you can sometimes learn law from legal dramas. I did not know what a Molineaux hearing was until I found the term after hearing it mentioned more than once in episodes of Law and Order, SVU. It is a New York legal term for a pre-trial hearing on admissibility into evidence of prior, uncharged crimes.
The point of this scene is solely to show how much Annalise is hated by the tribunal. Even tho some of these objections are clearly wrong, the judge still sustains all of them because of annalise’s reputation.
I knw nothing abt the law but in all this law dramas - they always object to a leading question either books have updated or something is differently wrong somewhere- N if thats the case wats the purpose of asking/crossing if ur going to give the witness answers by leading them 🙄 Anyway this is a drama series they can create their own laws - I’m here for the drama not for breaking of sections 2 of subsection 1
I think this scene is intentionally written like this, to show how biased the court and the prosecution is against Annalise. Most of the questions she asks are perfectly permissible
She wasn't being able to do so because of her past actions and her recent reputation, hence why the Judge said "I'll be inclined to report this conduct to the bar" as if she was indeed wrong (In this specific situation)...
So he’s in trial for sexual assault and one can’t bring up past behaviour? That goes to motive. You should be able to examine past behaviors. Past ruling on behaviour. If he committed a crime prior that and it’s on record, it should be used.
I am a lawyer and this is the first time I have seen this clip. the prosecutor's leading objection is a joke. You can ask leading questions on a cross examination.
Quite so. And the same comment could be made in respect of the prosecutor's final objection, "Counsel is trying to impugn the witness." That must be a common aim in cross examination (and presumably a legitimate one, if there is supporting evidence for it.) Also, the prosecutor's objection, "Leading," is such an obvious error that it makes me think it was a fluffed line by the actress and that the line in the script was probably, "inadmissible prior bad acts." Otherwise, the defense counsel's response, "Goes to establishing his pattern of behaviour while inebriated," makes no sense.
In any case, fiction is not required to be true to life or the law, and often isn't. On the other hand, subject to remembering the above limitation, you can sometimes learn law from legal dramas. I did not know what a Molineaux hearing was until I found the term after hearing it mentioned more than once in episodes of Law and Order, SVU. It is a New York legal term for a pre-trial hearing on admissibility into evidence of prior, uncharged crimes.
The point of this scene is solely to show how much Annalise is hated by the tribunal. Even tho some of these objections are clearly wrong, the judge still sustains all of them because of annalise’s reputation.
This show is pretty notorious for its lack of legal realism
Outside the scope is another joke since the witness mentioned the man who bumped into him during direct.
@@emanueleciralli7559 ciao
Whether she represents me or not Annalise Keating is freakin beautifully SCARY😬😬🥴.
I wanna be her
You're allowed to ask leading questions during cross examination.
I knw nothing abt the law but in all this law dramas - they always object to a leading question either books have updated or something is differently wrong somewhere-
N if thats the case wats the purpose of asking/crossing if ur going to give the witness answers by leading them 🙄
Anyway this is a drama series they can create their own laws - I’m here for the drama not for breaking of sections 2 of subsection 1
I just wanna put duct tape to the other 'objection' lawyer
I remember when I finish all the season all I’m saying to my friend was “objection” and “sustain” 😂😂😂
LMAO
Damn why cant we have another season
'Cause Shondaland was a bitch and wanted more of boring ass Grey's Anatomy, instead of focusing for once on another show instead of Meredith
@@victorrocha5755 Its just a damned show.calm down peopl youre quite the troubled individual using such language.
1:20 This objection would not be granted in court. "Objection! Offensive question!" Good grief!
wow Annalisa is good she can see right through the cline that Atwood coach him to stay stronge
She could easily defeat thanos
Sustained
Atwood, CEO of objection
Leading questions on cross examination are perfectly acceptable.
My favorable serie of all Times
you can see it all in Conner Michael and Simon wow that was intens
The courts were all hating on Annalise, because she gets her convictions in ways, they don't think are just.
Phoenix Wright: Finally a worthy opponent!
Loveee this serie so much
you can look at Conner wow
You can look on Conner face wow thats was intense
New Years Day honey.
Is that the guy in Michaels videos??? \
What episode is this?
Season 3 Episode 6
Season 3 episode 6
ADA Atwood kinda work it hard
This is really poorly written. For one thing, you are allowed to ask leading questions on cross-examination. That's Evidence 101.
I think this scene is intentionally written like this, to show how biased the court and the prosecution is against Annalise. Most of the questions she asks are perfectly permissible
I really do want to know how much research they did on these particular scenes
She wasn't being able to do so because of her past actions and her recent reputation, hence why the Judge said "I'll be inclined to report this conduct to the bar" as if she was indeed wrong (In this specific situation)...
@@motjon It's TV fictional drama people, get the damn over it
@@victorrocha5755 You should get over it loser youre the one cursing.
So he’s in trial for sexual assault and one can’t bring up past behaviour? That goes to motive. You should be able to examine past behaviors. Past ruling on behaviour. If he committed a crime prior that and it’s on record, it should be used.
01:03
01:37
01:29
What episode is this ?
What episode is this?
S3 E6