Thursday, May 17, 2007

Hue-Observations Day 4 Part 2

Mr Young constantly makes "walking" objections which tell the witness exactly how to testify. When a lawyer does this, the lawyer never actually instructs the witness. What the lawyer does, though, is explain to the witness, by summary, exactly what he is looking for. Young is the King of this method at trial. He is searching for the truth and the truth is what he says it is. When the witness does not conform to the truth, he will object and reformulate it. He just got away with it again and Brunet's ruling was quite literal; "He didn't instruct the witness to say anything." So the witness simply adopts what was just "suggested" by the lawyer, in their answer and that becomes the "truth".


Suh is quit livid over that and has requsted that there be no "walking objections". Brunet did not grant his request. Now, Barnett tries (he is not nearly as effective as Young is at it). Suh talks right over the objection asking what the basis is and he will conform the question to the one or two word objection. Young touches Barnett's shoulder to communicate that Barnett isn't the guy who should be trying to do this. Barnett understands. So do I.

Young will take just a few questions in redirect of Ferlat. Pay attention, this will be good.

He establishes she selects the peak and the background is adjusted automatically by the instrument. The answer was yes and thus Young established the truth because all the witness has said is "yes". He is brilliant, folks. I am witnessing a masterpiece of his making.

Dunn picks up with a"follow up" to Young's question. Ferlat shuts down and he moves on. THAT is how effective Young is. His associates can't duplicate what he is able to do. Dunn just tried to lead the witness and was corrected, properly, by Brunet. What Young does and can do is within the rules of arbitration and is ratified by rulings from the Chair. He is telling USADA's truth better than his witness do, sometimes, and he does everytime it is important to USAD's case to do so.


Anonymous said...

Its "Talking objection" and not "walking objection." Young is not making a normal objection but instead is just talking to interrupt and basically lead the witness to the answer he wants. Judges will normally admonish counsel to state an objection if they have one.

bill hue said...

We call them "walking" objections where this judge comes from but i'll yield if neccessary.

Anonymous said...

appreciate the play by guys are going above and beyond. THANK YOU!

question regarding the clock. at what point does this become an issue for the Landis camp? seems like they are eating up their clock, is if safe to figure when start rolling though their witnesses the prosucution will start eating up more time?

Vance said...

Isn't this the American adversarial legal system at work. Both sides choose their weapons, hire friendly experts, fight until bloody, the somehow from this fracas...'truth and justice' emerge?

Where is Solomon in all this? And will Landis and any number of cyclists emerge hating the USADA and WADA...the agencies that should be aiding the non-cheating competitor?

bill hue said...

I'm answering all questions at the Q and A forum topic. Scroll down to find it.