Related Posts
Conversation Starter
Reasons not to join HCL ??
UI/UX Designer with 8.5 years experience, mainly comprises UI Design and Frontend Development. I have a year of experience working on UX design tools like Sketch and Invision Design Systems.
I am attending online courses for UX Design, which job roles should I apply as, Senior UI Designer or UI/UX Designer, any suggestions/referrals will be much appreciated.
Referrals if any for below companies Accenture India KPMG India Cognizant Infosys Capgemini Deloitte India Tata Consultancy
😭 👶🏿 🌈 🐻. 🚀 🌚
Pro
Additional Posts in Litigation & Arbitration
Enthusiast
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
I would totally ask her about that.
I feel like this completely depends on how the cross has gone up to that point. But I guess as a general starting point, when appropriate, you'd essentially start by establishing that she's claiming neck injuries from your accident, then "this was the first time you injured your neck, correct?" "you never injured it prior to this accident?" "you never received medical treatment prior to this accident?" "but that's not true, is it?" then confront with prior medical records.
exactly, and it does depend on how the cross has gone up to that point but even if she was telling the truth the whole time and that situation arises where the plaintiff denies having injuries, you just simply provide evidence showing otherwise to contradict and object and if needed, you can always bring in the professionals who worked with her if there is still denial or to refresh there memory if you have any inclination of lying.
Ask leading questions (ie, “yes or no” questions) about her deposition testimony, specifically her answers to your questions.
“At deposition, you stated you never had pre-existing injuries to your neck, correct?” Ask several pinpointed questions about her testimony.
This is called laying the foundation for impeachment.
Then begin present her with evidence showing the opposite.
Ask her yes or no questions showing she lied at deposition, or at least that her testimony contradicts the evidence.
What you want to do is highlight her contradictions.
That is what id like to do, however as one other person pointed out, that could get an improper impeachment objection, since it is technically impeaching her deposition testimony rather than what she has said on the stand
I would also suggest reading trial transcripts of cross-examinations in similar cases.
No offense to the legal assistant giving you advice above, but a lot of that stuff is not accurate. At trial, a judge won’t “throw out a case” because a plaintiff is lying without you moving for a directed verdict. I would take all of that advice with a huge grain of salt.
Even if you move for a directed verdict, you would have to show that the plaintiff did not meet their burden of proof on all elements of their claim. Any credibility issues, like weighing evidence, would go to a jury.
definitely ask her about it but unless there were new damages to her neck from the accident that can be proved, there’s a really good chance she will be caught lying from the judge and the case might be thrown out due to lying under oath and or contempt.
it’s clear that you have more experience than me as i only hold a Legal Assistant Diploma so i appreciate the corrections where i am wrong but also appreciate the information. it sounds like a very smart move to set up your firm that way, especially with the judge being able to see the lies as well as your firm.
I was more asking, how the questioning would be setup
Ty both. The improper impeachment objection is something I was considering if I try to impeach her deposition testimony without her saying the same thing at trial. I just would really prefer to be able to impeach her. It’s unfortunate that she can in a sense get away with the false deposition testimony if she admits to the priors on the stand.
firstly, i’d ask the obvious”you say you never had any prior injuries or treatment for your neck, but here is medical records proving you had an accident on xyz from xyz. can you elaborate more on how those accidents happen and to what extent was your neck healed?” something along these lines will have the plaintiff in a position where they cannot lie and if they do, there is clear evidence proving otherwise.
also, i mean no disrespect, but people who lie in court can have cases thrown out if it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt under the balance of probabilities, and im not sure if you know what that means but if you don’t, it is essentially a weight that the courts determine truthfulness or being guilty.
another example for cases being thrown out would be, if procedures to charge or sue weren’t properly followed such like a traffic stop, if officers do not follow protocols and the driver or passenger has a gun, the whole case and charges can and usually get thrown out, that’s why there are laws and straight regulations that have to be followed so saying she “forgot” is a complete lie because there is no way someone forgets to have therapy or long lasting neck problems from previous accidents or situations.
im not entirely sure where you live but where im from, in civil cases and majority of criminal cases, this is how things are done to protect the applicant, plaintiff or accused. i was just using examples to maybe help your situation, not saying that i am 100% correct.