I think he means the point of view: 3rd person-from an outside point of view, 1st person-from the perspective of one of the characters. Not necessarily the grammatical sense of 1st person or 3rd person.
So in a criminal defense trial. You would paint the picture of the Complainant in an assault case the bad guy by showing his intent (Menes Rhea) to Trespass, intimidate and provoke? Then show the defendant as one who was taking action to prevent bodily harm? Thanks
Why can you not place your own words/ideas (maybe even slightly tweaked) into a witness(s) mouth? Sounds like those certain examinations are riddled with leading questions. Then again, I'm an under-grad pre-law major. If anyone can help with this question it'd be great! Nice video btw, Mr.EmoryLaw
This guy is presenting techniques which can be used by either side. The problem is, if the prosecution uses these techniques, then they're testifying. That is illegal, it violates the defendants due process, and violates many of his civil rights. He makes a couple of good points. But overall, you can disregard the rest. Anytime a prosecutor attempts to give an opening statement, he is considered to be testifying.
thank you i have learn a lot about closing and opening statement in court cases
Excellent.
Thank you. It answered some questions I had. BG
I salute you , thank you🙏
Thanks for educating us
You. Are. Wonderful!
Thank you ❤️
Thanks 😊
Thanks.
Thank u
Great info. However, 1st person is "I". "She" is 3rd person. Maybe the presenter meant present tense?
I think he means the point of view: 3rd person-from an outside point of view, 1st person-from the perspective of one of the characters. Not necessarily the grammatical sense of 1st person or 3rd person.
yolo
So in a criminal defense trial.
You would paint the picture of the Complainant in an assault case the bad guy by showing his intent (Menes Rhea) to Trespass, intimidate and provoke?
Then show the defendant as one who was taking action to prevent bodily harm?
Thanks
Law or equity ? Which venue is it ? Have all received full disclosure, and oaths on the record first ? Oh; consumer goods ?
What exactly are you asking?
Why can you not place your own words/ideas (maybe even slightly tweaked) into a witness(s) mouth? Sounds like those certain examinations are riddled with leading questions. Then again, I'm an under-grad pre-law major. If anyone can help with this question it'd be great! Nice video btw, Mr.EmoryLaw
In direct you can’t. But on cross you can. It would look bad on direct because it looks like you’re just leading the witness.
and the truth does not matter,
Ridiculous I have been trying to get into court for over an hour
This guy is presenting techniques which can be used by either side. The problem is, if the prosecution uses these techniques, then they're testifying. That is illegal, it violates the defendants due process, and violates many of his civil rights.
He makes a couple of good points. But overall, you can disregard the rest. Anytime a prosecutor attempts to give an opening statement, he is considered to be testifying.