You were confident in your case — you believed you would win given the case you presented, which in this case apparently meant that you just assumed the court would believe your testimony. You may have made a mistake that I see lots of people make. They assume because they know what happened that the judge and jury will clearly see that too. That gives them a bias towards their own case when looking at the evidence they present. They think their evidence clearly better than whatever the other side presents. That's not unusual, that's human nature. But what they need to realize is that some neutral third party — the judge or jury — only has the evidence they see in court to go on; they don't know what really happened, and they are getting two different versions of it. They don't know starting out which side might be honest and which one lying (and it's not necessarily the case that either one is lying, of course). So it's up to the litigant to make sure that his/her case is the more convincing one to a person whom they've never met before and who has no reason to automatically assume that they are honest people with good memories. I see lots of pro se litigants lose simply because they trust too much that all they have to do is get up on the stand, tell their side, and they'll win. It's not that easy, as you apparently found out.
There's nothing wrong or unethical about that line of questioning. That you seem to think so tells me that you have a very different concept of what trials should be like. Asking a witness to pin down the color of an object, if that's relevant to the case, is what a lawyer should do. And if the witness can't remember it exactly, then that's significant for the fact finder to know. I guess you think that's somehow evil to reveal that a witness does not remember exactly what he or she saw or experienced. But not revealing that would give the fact finder the false impression that the witness was more confident of what he or she saw than actually was the case.
No, Harold, this is you attempting to twist what I've said to fit your narrative. I never said, as you claimed, that this is what a rape victim would think. I simply set up an example that if she should she think that all men were rapists from that one experience, it would be illogical to do so. It was an analogy to highlight the flawed logic of thinking that just because one person does something that all persons of the same group do the same thing. You do understand analogy, right? That's all it was, nothing evil as you characterize it but you do so anyway. Why? To fit your view that lawyers as a group are dishonest? That certainly is how it appears to me.
Well, Harold, I think my take on what you said is justified considering you've said things like the following:
Those are your own words, so you can't deny them. And I provided links to the threads so you cannot say I altered your words in any way. And your words clearly show, as you stated yourself, that you have a bias against attorneys as group based on your experiences in those relatively few trials you had and that you think that lawyers hurt good people "on a regular basis" and that you find them as a group "very dangerous, dishonest, and likely immoral and unethical people."
So based on that, I think it's at least fair to say that you think that it is the norm for lawyers to be dangerous, dishonest, and likely immoral and unethical, all based on the few trials that you watched or were a party to. And my point is that, like a women thinking that men as a group are rapists after being raped by one would be illogical, so would thinking lawyers as a group are unethical just based on your limited experiences. I get why that happens, it's human nature; people do it all the time. Humans are not known for always being logical.
Let me ask you this: would it be logical for me to believe that contractors as a group are crooks based on my experiences with a couple that were? Should I think because of that that you are likely a crook too because you are a contractor? I would say no. If you agree with that, then how is it logical for you to think that lawyers as a group are unethical and immoral based on a couple of experiences with them?
I realize that this line of debate is likely pointless since, as I've said before, I doubt I'll change your views with anything I say. You have your views based on your experiences. I can understand why that is the case, even though I don't think it logical. It is, as I say, human nature to do it.
All he did was get you to say what was true — that you didn't know the exact speed you were going. How is eliciting honest testimony sleazy? If that's the sort of thing that you build your bias against lawyers on it is very weak indeed since asking relevant questions is exactly what lawyers are supposed to do. Trying to find holes in the opposing party's testimony is exactly what the lawyer is supposed to do. Revealing the weaknesses in the other side's case is fair game, and the other side will do that to you too. Nothing wrong at all with simply asking questions, getting honest answers, and probing for weaknesses and uncertainty. That's all stuff the the fact finder should know — both the strengths AND weaknesses of each side's case. How else do you think it should go? Do you really think that the prosecutor should not have tried to challenge your case? That he should not have asked questions to find weaknesses in your case?
And it wasn't that exchange that did you in since your statements still showed you were under the speed limit and not going 40 mph. If the judge had believed that, you'd have won. So that little bit of testimony didn't hurt you much, if at all. What almost certainly did you in was the cop's testimony about how fast you were going that the court accepted over your own claim that you were not speeding. What you needed to do was poke holes in the cop's testimony and, for good measure, you could explain why you couldn't have given an exact speed because of the slight variation over the distance traveled. Lying about the speed and saying were going exactly 32 mph would not have changed the outcome because the judge believed the cop over you. That's what you had to overcome, and that means poking holes in the cop's testimony to get the judge not to believe the cop.
I was never that confident that we could place 100% of the blame on the other party because I knew I was partially at fault. I asked my attorney many times during the trial that I wanted to take partial blame. But, as many lawyers do, he did not want me to take any blame at all. I asked to re-take the stand to counter some of the damage that was done to me, but he would not let me. And when the defense put on their expert witnesses there was a mixture of lies and my attorney not being able to parse them.
Lawyers can operate any way they can get away with...ethical or not. But what a lawyer wants you to do is get the witness to say "I don't know my exact speed." So, in my case he was able to do that when I said my speed was between two speeds. My speed varied but he made it sound like I did not know what speed I was going. It was as if I said the color was either aqua or turquoise, or burgundy or maroon. Which, even though those are virtually the same colors a lawyer would make a big deal by saying "so, you don't know what color it was." And, half of the stupid jury would believe him that I did not have a clue to what color it was.There's nothing wrong or unethical about that line of questioning. That you seem to think so tells me that you have a very different concept of what trials should be like. Asking a witness to pin down the color of an object, if that's relevant to the case, is what a lawyer should do. And if the witness can't remember it exactly, then that's significant for the fact finder to know. I guess you think that's somehow evil to reveal that a witness does not remember exactly what he or she saw or experienced. But not revealing that would give the fact finder the false impression that the witness was more confident of what he or she saw than actually was the case.
She would not think that all men are rapists, nor do I think all lawyers are unethical, untrustworthy or incompetent. We are justifiably not as trusting as we were after experiencing what some are capable of.No, Harold, this is you attempting to twist what I've said to fit your narrative. I never said, as you claimed, that this is what a rape victim would think. I simply set up an example that if she should she think that all men were rapists from that one experience, it would be illogical to do so. It was an analogy to highlight the flawed logic of thinking that just because one person does something that all persons of the same group do the same thing. You do understand analogy, right? That's all it was, nothing evil as you characterize it but you do so anyway. Why? To fit your view that lawyers as a group are dishonest? That certainly is how it appears to me.
I would not ever deny what I wrote and I do distrust and fear attorneys now because I have seen what they can do in their arena, the courtroom. In my case, neither attorney was clueless and they both knew their clients were at fault and were negligent. Yet, neither one ever admitted any fault. If they were ethical, they both would have admitted fault before ever entering the courtroom. But like I said, they each wanted to skin the other side alive. And, for the other side to spend well over $100,000 on the trial but only offer me $5,000 to settle seems ridiculous too.Well, Harold, I think my take on what you said is justified considering you've said things like the following:
Those are your own words, so you can't deny them. And I provided links to the threads so you cannot say I altered your words in any way. And your words clearly show, as you stated yourself, that you have a bias against attorneys as group based on your experiences in those relatively few trials you had and that you think that lawyers hurt good people "on a regular basis" and that you find them as a group "very dangerous, dishonest, and likely immoral and unethical people."
They do not think all men are rapists, rather untrustworthy. I think it is logical for the women who were raped by Bill Cosby to not trust men for a while. Wouldn't you?So based on that, I think it's at least fair to say that you think that it is the norm for lawyers to be dangerous, dishonest, and likely immoral and unethical, all based on the few trials that you watched or were a party to. And my point is that, like a women thinking that men as a group are rapists after being raped by one would be illogical, so would thinking lawyers as a group are unethical just based on your limited experiences. I get why that happens, it's human nature; people do it all the time. Humans are not known for always being logical.
I think you should be leery of contractors being able to estimate a large job and stick to that price all the way to the end. I do not distrust you because I have been able to vet you here to a certain degree. I think you are very honest because a dishonest lawyer would not give these folks the time of day...and you do. So, I use a lot criteria to judge people, not just that you are a lawyer. Should you trust me? Not until you look me in the eye and hear me describe your job. Only then because I come from a trade that has bad people in it.Let me ask you this: would it be logical for me to believe that contractors as a group are crooks based on my experiences with a couple that were? Should I think because of that that you are likely a crook too because you are a contractor? I would say no. If you agree with that, then how is it logical for you to think that lawyers as a group are unethical and immoral based on a couple of experiences with them?
Don't think that changing my mind is the only benefit from our exchange here. I find it fruitful that I can bounce my ideas off a lawyer and you should see the benefit of hearing someone explain why they distrust lawyers.I realize that this line of debate is likely pointless since, as I've said before, I doubt I'll change your views with anything I say. You have your views based on your experiences. I can understand why that is the case, even though I don't think it logical. It is, as I say, human nature to do it.
In that case I was young and the prosecutor was crafty, not unethical. In my recent case the witnesses lied, and I feel strongly that they were put up to it during pretrial meetings. The defense lawyer took my depo statements and edited them to mean something else. He used witness testimony that he could physically see was impossible on a map. He lied about other facts that were verifiable online. He entered new testimony during closing arguments, which is forbidden. He read a witness' depo statements to the jury, when we had no way to question that witness in front of the jury. Not sure if that is even fair. He said "there is no evidence of an injury" after two surgeons verified there was during trial. IOW, he was unethical.All he did was get you to say what was true — that you didn't know the exact speed you were going. How is eliciting honest testimony sleazy? If that's the sort of thing that you build your bias against lawyers on it is very weak indeed since asking relevant questions is exactly what lawyers are supposed to do. Trying to find holes in the opposing party's testimony is exactly what the lawyer is supposed to do. Revealing the weaknesses in the other side's case is fair game, and the other side will do that to you too. Nothing wrong at all with simply asking questions, getting honest answers, and probing for weaknesses and uncertainty. That's all stuff the the fact finder should know — both the strengths AND weaknesses of each side's case. How else do you think it should go? Do you really think that the prosecutor should not have tried to challenge your case? That he should not have asked questions to find weaknesses in your case?
I was young, probably with long hair, and I was no match for a dapper officer who had been in that courtroom a hundred times. Heck, he probably golfs with the prosecutor.And it wasn't that exchange that did you in since your statements still showed you were under the speed limit and not going 40 mph. If the judge had believed that, you'd have won. So that little bit of testimony didn't hurt you much, if at all. What almost certainly did you in was the cop's testimony about how fast you were going that the court accepted over your own claim that you were not speeding. What you needed to do was poke holes in the cop's testimony and, for good measure, you could explain why you couldn't have given an exact speed because of the slight variation over the distance traveled. Lying about the speed and saying were going exactly 32 mph would not have changed the outcome because the judge believed the cop over you. That's what you had to overcome, and that means poking holes in the cop's testimony to get the judge not to believe the cop.