This post is the follow up to 'Trial - Day 1 experience', where I am documenting some of my trial experiences hoping it's of benefit to others facing trial.
Court resumed late this morning because our justice was called in to do a 'mid-trial' on another case. A mid-trial is like a settlement conference - a different justice comes in to attempt to find settlement based on the facts as discovered in the case thus far. This mid-trial justice reads the litigants' opening statements and any pertinent list of facts/evidence provided by the presiding justice. As I understand it, mid-trial is usually ordered by a justice after sufficient testimony has been heard to start clarifying facts...in hopes that the parties will settle instead of prolonging trial.
Well, our justice has ordered a mid-trial tomorrow morning before we resume trial.
I've been on the stand for another day, this time to be cross-examined by my ex. We spent a lot of time on insignificant issues - I don't know where the justice gets his patience from. It was an inefficient cross, and we can learn best practices for examination:
1. keep your questions brief and to the point
2. wait for one question to be answered before starting another one
3. do not cut off the other party
4. do not make declarations without a question
5. do not ask a question if you do not know the answer you will get
My ex did not do my cross exam well, and so I came out of it very positive.
Number 4 above was the problem today: my ex was so insistent on grinding her axe that at times she would read a statement and leave it hanging without a question. She would make evidence submissions without attaching questions to it. The justice had to step in and correct her approach, at times calling her out of order.
I struck up a conversation at lunch with a lawyer. He said, 'the most important thing is to keep evidence simple, get to the facts and repeat the basics so the justice sees your point and remembers it'.
That is not what my ex did on cross exam today: she wandered from document to document, often not making points, and often just asking me to give an opinion on a statement. This is the best situation, and really is the result of not following #5 above: without a hard question to answer, being able to just respond to a statement allowed me plenty of time to reinforce my basic facts and beliefs. This was a big mistake by the opposing party.
The outcomes for today are:
1. This is examination, not making speeches. Form your questions well or your examination will back fire.
2. Be organized. Write your questions. And if you are referring to evidence have the evidence citations written with the question so you can find the evidence fast.
2. When a judge tells you that you are out of order, take it seriously.
Finally, we were interrupted for a 5 minute hearing on another urgent matter. The lawyers stepped up and the most interesting thing (other than how some litigants really do screw their own case on disclosure) is the judge's comment to the lawyers that we were more organized than most lawyers he's ever seen. I think we've curried favour with the justice which has given us great latitude as SRLs, because we are seen as working in good faith.
First up tomorrow is the mid-trial. If there is no settlement we'll finish cross exam of me and go to first witness exam. I prefer to settle, but I think my ex wants to hear the axe grind a little bit longer.
FG
Court resumed late this morning because our justice was called in to do a 'mid-trial' on another case. A mid-trial is like a settlement conference - a different justice comes in to attempt to find settlement based on the facts as discovered in the case thus far. This mid-trial justice reads the litigants' opening statements and any pertinent list of facts/evidence provided by the presiding justice. As I understand it, mid-trial is usually ordered by a justice after sufficient testimony has been heard to start clarifying facts...in hopes that the parties will settle instead of prolonging trial.
Well, our justice has ordered a mid-trial tomorrow morning before we resume trial.
I've been on the stand for another day, this time to be cross-examined by my ex. We spent a lot of time on insignificant issues - I don't know where the justice gets his patience from. It was an inefficient cross, and we can learn best practices for examination:
1. keep your questions brief and to the point
2. wait for one question to be answered before starting another one
3. do not cut off the other party
4. do not make declarations without a question
5. do not ask a question if you do not know the answer you will get
My ex did not do my cross exam well, and so I came out of it very positive.
Number 4 above was the problem today: my ex was so insistent on grinding her axe that at times she would read a statement and leave it hanging without a question. She would make evidence submissions without attaching questions to it. The justice had to step in and correct her approach, at times calling her out of order.
I struck up a conversation at lunch with a lawyer. He said, 'the most important thing is to keep evidence simple, get to the facts and repeat the basics so the justice sees your point and remembers it'.
That is not what my ex did on cross exam today: she wandered from document to document, often not making points, and often just asking me to give an opinion on a statement. This is the best situation, and really is the result of not following #5 above: without a hard question to answer, being able to just respond to a statement allowed me plenty of time to reinforce my basic facts and beliefs. This was a big mistake by the opposing party.
The outcomes for today are:
1. This is examination, not making speeches. Form your questions well or your examination will back fire.
2. Be organized. Write your questions. And if you are referring to evidence have the evidence citations written with the question so you can find the evidence fast.
2. When a judge tells you that you are out of order, take it seriously.
Finally, we were interrupted for a 5 minute hearing on another urgent matter. The lawyers stepped up and the most interesting thing (other than how some litigants really do screw their own case on disclosure) is the judge's comment to the lawyers that we were more organized than most lawyers he's ever seen. I think we've curried favour with the justice which has given us great latitude as SRLs, because we are seen as working in good faith.
First up tomorrow is the mid-trial. If there is no settlement we'll finish cross exam of me and go to first witness exam. I prefer to settle, but I think my ex wants to hear the axe grind a little bit longer.
FG
Comment