Team court & prosecutrix v. me - trial fun 9 (of 10)

I am crossing the extraneous complainant (about which I had no notice as required by the rules. She admits she talked to my client's ex-wife a couple of weeks before the trial began but just decided she wanted to testify. Client's ex-wife was there every day & hated client. So, uh, yeah, right. I'm believing that. DUH.)

I do not believe her any more than I believed the complainant for numerous reasons. And, I do not have to concede their stories when I am talking - do I? Well apparently the judge thinks I do. P (the PNDL who deserves no number) objects that I am being argumentative in the phrasing of my questions when I ask, ME: And were ya'll on the couch, by your allegation, when he was rubbing himself on you, or on the floor? [For my Northern area readers - I know you are not believing I actually said ya'll - but I did, and I do. That & this Texas accent are how my jurors know I'm from 'round these here parts. Gosh that made me laugh when I was editing. Hope you are, too.]

So, the judge asks to hear the question again - of course, this is impossible for me because my mind races so I get close: ME: Were you on the couch when you claim he sexually assaulted you or were you on the floor. The Court: Thank you. (the ever famous phrase) [to P] You withdraw your objection? P: She's changed the phrasing, yes. [Actually, didn't I make it more argumentative?! Anyway, I'm frequently accused of something regarding my phrasing by the judge in this case, so now P is at it.]

Anyway, I began my next question when I am interrupted. ME: Were you on the couch when you say you were sexually assaulted - - The Court: Excuse me. Anytime you say, quote when you say or quote when you claim, that's an argumentative question. MAN - my hearing must be bad because I did NOT hear an objection. So, I take to use the word alleging. ME: You're alleging that Ralph rubbed his [I'm leaving out the specific word for this body part] on you; correct?. . . And when you are saying that this happened, were ya'll on the couch or on the floor? [Guess they gave up because the second question was just after the first . . .]

I mean - this is the way it is done. I do not have to concede that one word this girl is saying is true! Anyway, just some more crap to try to screw with me and thereby screw my client.

I like a short while later when I am asking her about some things that P represented to me & the Court that c/w2 said. She says she did NOT tell P this, and she did not tell P that. Her objection? P: [now remember - read this in a whiny tone!!!] Objection, she's asked and answered it. The Court: Sustained. HA! HA! HA! Yes, P, go ahead & make sure that everyone is aware that you have at least told me that c/w2 said certain things that she did not!!! My integrity continues to remain intact while hers is - in tatters. HA!

You know the problem here - not enough practice. You know how hard it is to remember a lie. Well, these two just did not have enough time for them to practice back & forth (this is frequently called woodshedding) and the girl wasn't a professional witness. If they had had more time, then they could have perfected the story. As it was, things were just falling apart with every question I asked. I had begun really liking this additional allegation because it was so bogus that everyone in the room could smell it. [And I didn't even throw that skunk in the box! P did by going TOO far.]

Normally when a defense lawyer gets finished cross-examining someone like a sweet girl who has supposedly been sexually assaulted & then has to endure the hateful ole' defense lawyer's insinuations or outright allegations that she is lying [during her horrid embarassment in telling the tale], the State wants to fix any little problems and make that mean defense lawyer really pay for hurting such an innocent c/w. Well, not this time. I tore this girl up so bad not only did the State not redirect (ask additional questions) but she immediately rested & did not call the other witnesses that she had. HA!

Next thing is me putting on one of Client's children to talk about how his mother (Client's ex) has been threatening to get people down to that courthouse and testify against Client to ensure conviction. I'm trying to get in some good stuff quickly because I know, from my experience in THIS trial, that once P objects, the party is over. (I'm not allowed to do anything that might hurt the State's case, ya know. Some special rule made up just for this case apparently.)

The Court calls for the jury to retire so she & P can figure out how to keep any impeachment out when apparently a fight breaks out in the hall between witnesses. This case was the biggest cluster you know what I have ever been involved in! In fact, after the jury fails to convict my client, the judge holds a hearing to determine contempt. (The Court even orders witnesses for one side to use the restroom on one floor, and witnesses on the other side to use the restroom on a separate form! I swear! But, I didn't get my evidence in before the jury so I made a bill with several witnesses. I already told you, if Client got convicted, I was sure this case would be reversed. I made sure the appellate court would know everything that I was put through in trying to get this man a fair trial!)

One final posting on THIS case after this one - my threat to sequester the jury, and the court's response. It is funny. Remember - we have had 7 days of testimony that has lasted over a couple of weeks because of The Court's various personal scheduling. . . You will enjoy my only win in this trial. (Okay - not really my only - I got a hung jury & a dismissal which was most wonderful . . .)

Until next time. . .