Summary of Presumed Innocent

This is an AI generated summary. There may be inaccuracies.
Summarize another video · Purchase Premium

00:00:00 - 01:00:00

This video discusses courtroom strategies for both the prosecution and defense. It emphasizes the importance of paying attention to the details and provides examples of how this can help win a case.

  • 00:00:00 This video discusses the cross-examination of a witness in a criminal trial. The witness, Dr. Roland Painless, has extensive qualifications and is well-known in the legal community. His testimony is devastating for the defense, as heexplains that the presence of a spermicide compound and the fact that the victim was not restrained strongly suggests that she was raped in order to conceal the identity of her attacker.
  • 00:05:00 In this video, Sandy Stern, the prosecutor in the Gary Ridgway case, discusses how he handles damaging direct examination. He and his trial partner, who he refers to as "I forget his name," seem calm and unaffected by the information being brought against the defendant. When the damaging information does come out, they know what to do: remain composed and not show any reaction. This is effective because the jury is watching them, and if a defense lawyer does this, it can negatively impact their case.
  • 00:10:00 Herb Cohen provides a detailed explanation of how to cross-examine a witness, emphasizing the importance of maintaining eye contact and speaking in a calm, clear manner.
  • 00:15:00 The speaker suggests that, in order to be as real as possible, lawyers should focus on communicating with the jury instead of talking to the witness directly. They also suggest that, in order to be successful, a lawyer must be genuine and must avoid using artificial techniques. Rich disagrees with this approach, and suggests that, in order to be convincing, a lawyer should focus on the witness and try to create a relationship with them.
  • 00:20:00 The speaker discusses the importance of paying attention to the witness and how it can help you take advantage of opportunities. He also discusses the importance of being alive in the courtroom and how it can help you defend your case.
  • 00:25:00 In this video, two attorneys discuss how they can "eviscerate" the prosecution's case. The attorneys note that one of the ways to do this is to "establish something," but they feel that this was not done in this case. The attorneys discuss how the defendant was alive in the courtroom, noting that he was aware of the mistakes that the prosecution was making and that he took advantage of this.
  • 00:30:00 The video discusses the importance of paying attention to the trial proceedings, and how one lawyer's careless mistake cost his client the case. The video also features a brief story about another lawyer who made a similar mistake.
  • 00:35:00 The speaker tells a story of being on the "courthouse list" for a first-degree murder trial and how it reminded him of another time, years earlier, when he was defending a member of a gang in south Florida and the victim testified that he had gone into the gang clubhouse after stealing from them and peed on the floor. The other co-defendant lawyers cross-examined the victim and the speaker, and the victim testified that he had left the courthouse for lunch and come back, just before the speaker cross-examined him. The speaker's intuition told him that the victim was lying and he used this information to get an acquittal. The story reminds the listener that even if a witness seems bad, it's important to read them and pay attention to the details to see if there is any clue that can help with the case.
  • 00:40:00 In this video, a lawyer discusses how important it is to have evidence that supports an expert opinion, and how important it is to catch the victim's accuser in a lie. The lawyer then discusses how the expert opinion of a rape victim's use of a birth control device is critical to the prosecution's case. He also discusses how the expert opinion of the presence of spermicide in the victim's specimen is also critical to the case.
  • 00:45:00 In this video, Mac, a bartender, teaches how to make a Hurricane cocktail. He starts by mixing together two parts pineapple juice, one part triple sec, and a splash of grenadine. Next, he adds one part rum to the glass. Finally, he adds two parts passion fruit juice. The drink is then shaken vigorously and served with ice.
  • 00:50:00 The video discusses the case of Roland Canova, a man convicted of murder despite having a alibi. Canova's lawyers argue that he was innocent, and suggest possible reasons why the woman who testified against him might have lied. Canova's eyes appear thick and he has no idea where Stern is headed, suggesting that he is not thinking clearly. The experts agree that there is no reason why a woman who knew she could not conceive would use a spermicide or diaphragm, and suggest that the woman may have been motivated by spite rather than logic.
  • 00:55:00 The video discusses the different ways a lawyer can trap a witness, and how important it is to nail down the argument before springing the trap. It also discusses the use of an agree board, which can be used to illustrate common ground between the lawyer and the witness.

01:00:00 - 01:30:00

In the video "Presumed Innocent," lawyer Scott Scoggins discusses the importance of cross-examination in a courtroom setting. He argues that the questioning of a witness is an art form, and that by using questions, body language, and visuals, a lawyer can get the witness to make a commitment. Scoggins also discusses the importance of jurors being able to remember what happened during a trial, and how a witness can inadvertently reveal significant information during testimony.

  • 01:00:00 The video discusses how, in the cross examination of a witness, it is important to watch for signs that the trap has been sprung, and to be careful not to cut off escape routes. Sandy argues that, by using words like "absurd" and "can't think of a reason," Scott was pushing the witness to the point where they would be unable to provide a credible defense.
  • 01:05:00 The video discusses how Scott Scott Scoggins, an attorney, believes that the cross examination of a witness is about risk management. He argues that the question of whether or not the witness can conceive is a safe answer, and that if the witness refuses to answer, it is absurd. He goes on to say that the cross examination is an art form, and that when a lawyer has successfully mauled the witness in an embarrassing impeachment, they can get the witness to say anything.
  • 01:10:00 The video covers the basics of cross-examination and how to use traps to get a witness to agree with you. The most notable trap mentioned is the "trap," which is when the lawyer gets the witness to make a commitment. This can be done through questions, body language, and visuals. The video provides an example of how not to use the trap, which is by not getting the witness to make a commitment.
  • 01:15:00 In this video, Scott Stern, a lawyer, discusses how a good cross-examination can emphasize important points in a witness's testimony. He also mentions the cross-examination of Tom Cruise in the movie "Ted." Stern points out that there are many ways to make a cross-examination interesting and memorable.
  • 01:20:00 The video discusses how jurors can sometimes forget what happened during a trial. One example is when the prosecutor brings up a previous event that the jury may not have remembered. The video also discusses how a juror can be dramatic or logical, and how it is better to be the latter. Finally, the video explains how a witness can inadvertently reveal significant information during testimony, and how this can affect the jury.
  • 01:25:00 Carolyn aborted a pregnancy and it is this doctor no doubt whom Kemp went to meet yesterday afternoon. I ask you again sir; would those records alter your expert opinion opinion? Kumar guy does not answer. Sir is it now your expert opinion that Carolyn Pohemus knew she could not conceive? Uh; apparently, Kumar guy looks up from the papers. In my confusion, I find that I actually feel sorry for him. He is slow now. Hollow. It is tumulto and nico he speaks not stern or the jury. I forgot he tells them; sir is it not absurd to believe that Carolyn Pohemus used a spermicide on the night of April 1st, whom a guy does not answer? Is it not unreasonable to believe that Kumagai does not respond? Is it not likely that the specimen containing the spermicide, the specimen identified as containing fluids of Mr. Savage's blood type was not taken from the body of Carolyn Pohemus? Painless shakes his head again. But this is not denial. He does not know what occurred. Sir is it not likely it is possible that he finally says from the jury box clear across the courtroom, I can hear one of the men say for Christ's sake. So, so I just felt it when
  • 01:30:00 Jim Gilbert, a lawyer out of Colorado, founder of the Aieg law firm, and advocate for criminal defendants, talks about the importance of destroying the credibility of witnesses in court. John shares his experience as a volunteer at a CLE event, where he learned how to process evidence and identify his strengths and weaknesses.

Copyright © 2024 Summarize, LLC. All rights reserved. · Terms of Service · Privacy Policy · As an Amazon Associate, earns from qualifying purchases.