| Court Records https://forums.court-records.net/ |
|
| The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player https://forums.court-records.net/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=16299 |
Page 5 of 5 |
| Author: | Starbvck [ Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player |
Now I know they're just messing with us. They gave us a case to read about an exploding outhouse. |
|
| Author: | Bad Player [ Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player |
Nah. You're learning the precedent for exploding-outhouses and falling-cows, so you'll know exactly how previous judges will have ruled when you have all those cases involving this stuff. |
|
| Author: | Starbvck [ Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player |
Mock trial starts on Saturday. We're going to do two rounds, and if we win, we get to advance to the semis on Sunday. I found the source for the case, which means that it is freely available online, but other schools will recycle this case also. I'm sorry to say that I cannot discuss the case in any detail in case a future team stumbles across my posts and gains an unfair advantage. We're operating in a "comparative negligence" state, which means that damages are apportioned according to percentage. For example, if the jury finds that the defendant was 65% at fault, the plaintiff was 20% at fault, and a third party was 15% at fault, the plaintiffs would collect 65% of the damages sought[1]. There are four witnesses, two that the plaintiffs will call and two that the defendants will call. None of them is a perfect witness--their depositions are full of contradictions between each other and the evidence. Some of these contradictions are more subtle than others. They have their biases, stakes, and poor recollections. We are on a time limit, each side has only 90 minutes to go through their opening and closing statements and the witnesses. Last Sunday, we had a mooting session, a practice trial. The upperclassmen gave drafts of their speeches and asked me and the other first-year the questions that they were planning on asking the witnesses. I role-played two of the witnesses. One of them managed to hold his ground but the other wove a web of deceit, lies, and contradictions----and got destroyed in cross-examination[2]. I may have to be a witness during Saturday's rounds. ~~~~ [1]This has the disadvantage of clogging up the courts with cases brought by plaintiffs who were mainly at fault themselves, but want to collect on a small bit of negligence by another party. Another system is "contributory negligence", which is an all-or-nothing matter. If you were 1% at fault, and the defendant was 99% at fault, you LOSE! YOU GET NOTHING! GOOD DAY SIR! This has the disadvantage of not providing people with incentives to be careful. Most states have a modified comparative negligence system in which the defendant must be at least half at fault for the plaintiff to collect. [2]No, I didn't scratch up my face or roar like a tiger or go super saiyan or anything like that. |
|
| Author: | Yaragorm [ Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player |
Starbvck wrote: Now I know they're just messing with us. They gave us a case to read about an exploding outhouse. Oh man, I have seen SO MANY stories of those.....should be interesting to read about.... 
|
|
| Author: | Starbvck [ Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player |
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Van Benshoten, 166 N.E. 374 (Ohio 1929)[1] Employees of the defendant were laying an electrical conduit. They opened a manhole above the sanitary sewers and erected an outhouse for the convenience of the workers only. The plaintiff, Mr. van Benshoten, was a local real estate agent who walked to the worksite and used the outhouse. Inside, he tried to light a cigarette and ignited the fumes coming from the sewer 20 feet below. After the resulting explosion, he found himself outside. Van Benshoten then sued the power company for negligence in building the outhouse in a way allowing gas to build up inside, keeping the door unlocked, and failing to warn him of the dangers of the outhouse. Nobody else new he was in the outhouse until after the explosion. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the directed verdict for the defendant, finding that the power company did not have the duty to warn or give reasonable care to unknown trespassers, or foresee that somebody would light a match in the outhouse. Instead, the Court found that van Benshoten was entirely at fault for trespassing onto the worksite and lighting a match. The court distinguished this from attractive nuisance cases in which small children were injured by playing on dangerous stuctures that the owners knew or should have known would be attractive to children[2]. ~~~~ [1]I'll begin posting more formal briefs again as finals approach and I do more review work. [2]The canonical example of an attractive nuisance is a backyard swimming pool. This is why pool owners have to keep high wooden locked fences--to prevent neighboring children from wandering over, falling in, and drowning. |
|
| Author: | Yaragorm [ Fri Oct 23, 2009 6:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player |
Starbvck wrote: Inside, he tried to light a cigarette and ignited the fumes coming from the sewer 20 feet below. After the resulting explosion, he found himself outside. And THIS is why smoking is bad. 
|
|
| Author: | Bad Player [ Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player |
Starbvck wrote: I role-played two of the witnesses. One of them managed to hold his ground but the other wove a web of deceit, lies, and contradictions----and got destroyed in cross-examination[2]. [2]No, I didn't scratch up my face or roar like a tiger or go super saiyan or anything like that. ...Are you going to in the actual trial? 
|
|
| Author: | Starbvck [ Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player |
Bad Player wrote: Starbvck wrote: I role-played two of the witnesses. One of them managed to hold his ground but the other wove a web of deceit, lies, and contradictions----and got destroyed in cross-examination[2]. [2]No, I didn't scratch up my face or roar like a tiger or go super saiyan or anything like that. ...Are you going to in the actual trial? I hope I don't have to be that witness. |
|
| Author: | Starbvck [ Fri Oct 23, 2009 2:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player |
One other thing I should probably tell you. Not long after I registered, I made a post about a company selling pins that looked like attorneys badges, which I suggested and used as a cosplay accessory. I didn't buy this just for those reasons. I bought it so I can wear it as a professional when I do a trial or an appeal. They said things when Justice Rehnquist wore gold stripes on his robes after seeing a judge in a similar costume in an opera, and they're going to say things about this pin. And everybody at the convention loved the pin, and I just want to say this, right now, that regardless of what they say about it, I'm going to keep it. |
|
| Author: | Yaragorm [ Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player |
Oh yeah, what do real Attorney's badges look like? I've always been curious about that... |
|
| Author: | Bad Player [ Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player |
Do attorneys even need to wear badges? (Yaragorm, if there was a set badges lawyers need to wear, I'm sure Starbuck would wear that one instead of his PW one)
|
|
| Author: | Yaragorm [ Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player |
Bad Player wrote: Do attorneys even need to wear badges? (Yaragorm, if there was a set badges lawyers need to wear, I'm sure Starbuck would wear that one instead of his PW one)Oh, never mind, it seemed interesting though.... Although I'm sure attornies still need some type of identification... |
|
| Author: | Coffee Prosecutor [ Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player |
Yaragorm wrote: Bad Player wrote: Do attorneys even need to wear badges? (Yaragorm, if there was a set badges lawyers need to wear, I'm sure Starbuck would wear that one instead of his PW one)Oh, never mind, it seemed interesting though.... Although I'm sure attornies still need some time of identification... If u wanna know google it! Or i´ll take a look now |
|
| Author: | Starbvck [ Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player |
I don't think any attorney has to wear a badge in the U.S. There's a company that sells official-looking sheriff-style badges that go in a wallet, but no state bar endorses them. Michigan especially is not amused. In some states, prosecutors get badges, but this is less common now due to the abuse potential (doing things like waving it at a police officer trying to get out of a speeding ticket). Again, you carry it in your wallet, not wear it on your chest. Some attorneys will wear scales-of-justice jewelry like pins, tie clips, or cufflinks, but it's not that common----I think more wear little American flag pins. I have to be a witness for two cases. I will not be placed in the same room as my upperclassmen, but will face other teams who haven't seen me before or know my version of the events. It's going to be tough since I think this is the guy who did it. His personality is somewhere between  and  . I've prepped myself so I make sure I don't fall into the same traps that I did last week.It's going to be very interesting. The side I thought was liable when I first started, now I think is not liable. But now I have to get some rest----I have to be at the college at 8AM. Turnabout Bus Chapter 1-2 End.
|
|
| Author: | Bad Player [ Sat Oct 24, 2009 11:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player |
So now that it's official... Bad Player wrote: Starbvck wrote: I role-played two of the witnesses. One of them managed to hold his ground but the other wove a web of deceit, lies, and contradictions----and got destroyed in cross-examination[2]. [2]No, I didn't scratch up my face or roar like a tiger or go super saiyan or anything like that. ...Are you going to in the actual trial? (I also find it so weird that you're the witness, but you don't know everything, like if you did it or not.) |
|
| Author: | Starbvck [ Sun Oct 25, 2009 4:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player |
The miracle never happen. I'll give the full report tomorrow. But first: Froot Loops 2: The Revenge 
|
|
| Author: | Starbvck [ Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player |
My team went 1-1, so we got knocked out the first day. Only the teams with perfect win records got to advance. So...yeah. I couldn't watch them since I had to be a witness. Each team had to supply a first year as a witness, but could not use their own witness, since they knew what questions to ask. I was a witness for the plaintiff. The trouble is, my testimony was full of lies and contradictions[1]. The first round, I managed to come across as credible and sympathetic (the defendants couldn't really do anything in cross-examination) and the plaintiffs won. Also the plaintiff's attorneys ripped one of the defense witnesses to shreds. The judge complimented me on my acting skills. In the second round, the plaintiffs got out-lawyered. Although I managed to get through cross-examination without too much trouble, the defense attorney waited until closing and systematically destroyed everything I said. So the defense won. There were a couple times when somebody would actually object for objection's sake. And finally, I got to watch this exchange during a cross-examination. I don't remember the exact words, but...  So you saw the victim when she was on the sidewalk? Yes. And you saw the victim when she was in the median? Yes. But you didn't see her when she was walking across the street from the sidewalk to the median? No I didn't. But she did walk from the sidewalk to the median, right? How else would she get there? Teleportation? (laughter) ... This is serious business! A girl is dead and you're making jokes! I just meant that she had to have walked. ...The judge took off points for that--he said that although the witness looked like a jerk, the lawyer over-reacted and looked like a bully. He said that if a witness makes an inappropriate wisecrack, better would be to just wink and nod at the jury, in a "can you believe he actually said that" kind of look. This also shows the most difficult part of cross-examination----knowing when to stop. One question more than necessary, and you could end up with egg on your face[2]. Although the attorney got the fact he wanted, that the witness probably saw the victim walk across the street, he lost control of the proceedings. ~~~~ [1]There were four witnesses: two for the plaintiffs and two for the defendant. None of them was ideal. The first, the police detective, didn't actually see anything himself, and didn't really do a thorough investigation. The second plaintiff witness had no credibility. The first defense witness was a bit too eager to help out, and could give up some very damaging information if pressed. The second defense witness was an employee of the defendant, and was trying to cover. [2]Historical example, from legendary defense attorney Jake Erlich, A Reasonable Doubt. Patrolman Murphy, do you think that a year's experience as a police officer qualifies you to state that my client was intoxicated? No, sir.[Erlich writes that here the questioning should have stopped, but it didn't.] Upon what, then, do you base your assumption that my client was drunk? From fourteen years of bartending.
|
|
| Author: | Bad Player [ Tue Oct 27, 2009 9:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player |
So if I understand this correctly... There are teams of upperclassmen, and each team gives underclassmen to play as the witnesses. Then the underclassmen are somehow distributed to the upperclassmen teams to be their witnesses during the trial, although the upperclassmen teams can't get the underclassmen they gave? And so were you the police officer? Anyway, awwwwwwww... :( At least you got complimented on your acting xD If the defense waited for the last second, then there wasn't really anything you could do about it. But (assuming this went as I described earlier) who gets the points... the underclassmen witnesses or upperclassmen attorneys? Finally: Little thing I was wondering... What are you supposed to do if someone uses a latin phrase you don't know/understand? 
|
|
| Author: | Starbvck [ Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player |
Bad Player wrote: So if I understand this correctly... There are teams of upperclassmen, and each team gives underclassmen to play as the witnesses. Then the underclassmen are somehow distributed to the upperclassmen teams to be their witnesses during the trial, although the upperclassmen teams can't get the underclassmen they gave? That's correct. Quote: And so were you the police officer? No, I was the other plaintiff witness. Quote: Anyway, awwwwwwww... :( At least you got complimented on your acting xD If the defense waited for the last second, then there wasn't really anything you could do about it. But (assuming this went as I described earlier) who gets the points... the underclassmen witnesses or upperclassmen attorneys? The upperclassmen who argue the case get the points. I don't know if I would have shared in scholarship money if I was on a winning team. Quote: Finally: Little thing I was wondering... What are you supposed to do if someone uses a latin phrase you don't know/understand? The other attorney or the judge? |
|
| Author: | Starbvck [ Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player |
Moving on, it's been too long since I gave a contracts case. We're discussing fraud today, specifically, concealment and non-disclosure. This case actually came up in class. If you sell a haunted house, do you have to tell the buyer that it is haunted? Stambovsky v. Ackley, 572 N.Y.S.2d 672, 169 A.D.2d 254 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991). |
|
| Author: | Yaragorm [ Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player |
Interesting case, I think that unless it's very obvious that it's haunted then the man should not tell the buyer otherwise the buyer would get scared even if he did buy the house he may feel afraid and if I were that housebuyer I would rather he didn't tell me...... After all, ignorance is bliss.... |
|
| Author: | Cal Santiago [ Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player |
Haha. I'm an art student, but I was able to take one class that's somewhat-related to law for a whole semester; I guess I can post here, right? Anyway, that course was "Introduction to Symbolic (Mathematical) Logic". Deep down, I liked calling it "Edgeworth 101", hehe. We were taught all sorts of interesting things in that class, including, of course, elementary symbolic logic (that's different from normal syllogisms, BTW-- it was cool when our professor told us that symbolic logic could get you into the NYPD crime lab if you were good enough at it), what makes an argument and what makes an argument VALID; inductive and deductive reasoning; natural deduction and the reductio ad absurdum method (that means "reducing to absurdity"-- it's a technique that's used to deconstruct an argument to figure out whether it's valid or not); quantification logic, and a lot more. We also tackled a little bit of evidence law, and a little bit of traditional syllogisms. But what's really cool is the fact that you can relate logic to almost anything, including, but not limited to, artificial intelligence. When I was taking the class, I did some comparison of the argumental analysis we did to the argumental analysis in the AA games... It's true. AA Law really is THAT far away from Law in real life. |
|
| Author: | Lunaria42 [ Sat Oct 31, 2009 4:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player |
LightningfistCal wrote: Haha. I'm an art student, but I was able to take one class that's somewhat-related to law for a whole semester; I guess I can post here, right? Since this thread is more about the personal experiences of the thread creator, that would be up to his discretion. |
|
| Author: | Starbvck [ Sat Oct 31, 2009 9:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player |
LightningfistCal wrote: Haha. I'm an art student, but I was able to take one class that's somewhat-related to law for a whole semester; I guess I can post here, right? Anyway, that course was "Introduction to Symbolic (Mathematical) Logic". Deep down, I liked calling it "Edgeworth 101", hehe. We were taught all sorts of interesting things in that class, including, of course, elementary symbolic logic (that's different from normal syllogisms, BTW-- it was cool when our professor told us that symbolic logic could get you into the NYPD crime lab if you were good enough at it), what makes an argument and what makes an argument VALID; inductive and deductive reasoning; natural deduction and the reductio ad absurdum method (that means "reducing to absurdity"-- it's a technique that's used to deconstruct an argument to figure out whether it's valid or not); quantification logic, and a lot more. We also tackled a little bit of evidence law, and a little bit of traditional syllogisms. But what's really cool is the fact that you can relate logic to almost anything, including, but not limited to, artificial intelligence. When I was taking the class, I did some comparison of the argumental analysis we did to the argumental analysis in the AA games... It's true. AA Law really is THAT far away from Law in real life. Not only is it "Edgeworth 101", it's LSAT 101! I would strongly recommend everybody considering law school to take this kind of class in college. |
|
| Author: | Coffee Prosecutor [ Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player |
Call me stupid and I am sorry but:Waht is this thread about? I am not sure Please explain me further(Via PM) |
|
| Author: | Cyrus Vorazan [ Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player |
Coffee Prosecutor wrote: Call me stupid and I am sorry but:Waht is this thread about? I am not sure Please explain me further(Via PM) seconded |
|
| Author: | Yaragorm [ Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player |
It's about the author's education in Law and other Lawyering stuff and how he feels about it and what he has to do and stuff like that. You know, for those fans of AA who became inspired to become a lawyer? |
|
| Author: | Coffee Prosecutor [ Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player |
Yaragorm wrote: It's about the author's education in Law and other Lawyering stuff and how he feels about it and what he has to do and stuff like that. You know, for those fans of AA who became inspired to become a lawyer? Thanx I need to read it more carefully ´cause I got inspired too by AA |
|
| Author: | Cyrus Vorazan [ Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player |
hm. I wish I became a plumber because of mario. Same amount of reason |
|
| Author: | Bad Player [ Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player |
Starbvck wrote: Quote: Finally: Little thing I was wondering... What are you supposed to do if someone uses a latin phrase you don't know/understand? The other attorney or the judge? Uhm... I guess both? Are you supposed to carry around a little latin legal dictionary to look stuff up on the fly? xD Starbvck wrote: If you sell a haunted house, do you have to tell the buyer that it is haunted? How do you prove it's haunted in the first place?
|
|
| Author: | Femme Fatale [ Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player |
Bad Player wrote: Starbvck wrote: Quote: Finally: Little thing I was wondering... What are you supposed to do if someone uses a latin phrase you don't know/understand? The other attorney or the judge? Uhm... I guess both? Are you supposed to carry around a little latin legal dictionary to look stuff up on the fly? xD Just discretely change the subject so that your lack of knowledge doesn't call attention, I guess? |
|
| Author: | Cal Santiago [ Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player |
Starbvck wrote: LightningfistCal wrote: Haha. I'm an art student, but I was able to take one class that's somewhat-related to law for a whole semester; I guess I can post here, right? Anyway, that course was "Introduction to Symbolic (Mathematical) Logic". Deep down, I liked calling it "Edgeworth 101", hehe. We were taught all sorts of interesting things in that class, including, of course, elementary symbolic logic (that's different from normal syllogisms, BTW-- it was cool when our professor told us that symbolic logic could get you into the NYPD crime lab if you were good enough at it), what makes an argument and what makes an argument VALID; inductive and deductive reasoning; natural deduction and the reductio ad absurdum method (that means "reducing to absurdity"-- it's a technique that's used to deconstruct an argument to figure out whether it's valid or not); quantification logic, and a lot more. We also tackled a little bit of evidence law, and a little bit of traditional syllogisms. But what's really cool is the fact that you can relate logic to almost anything, including, but not limited to, artificial intelligence. When I was taking the class, I did some comparison of the argumental analysis we did to the argumental analysis in the AA games... It's true. AA Law really is THAT far away from Law in real life. Not only is it "Edgeworth 101", it's LSAT 101! I would strongly recommend everybody considering law school to take this kind of class in college. True, true. It works even if you're not a Law student, too. |
|
| Author: | Starbvck [ Sat Nov 07, 2009 2:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player |
Sorry to take so long replying, I was busy at the office this week, and last weekend, I had other issues[1] to deal with. Will discuss the haunted house case tonight. ~~~~ [1]I was the one on the right. |
|
| Author: | Starbvck [ Wed Nov 11, 2009 5:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player |
There are two major legal research companies: West and LexisNexis. Most law firms subscribe to both services. They charge a LOT for each search. Both West and Lexis want you to use their search service throughout your career, so they can collect up those big search charges. While you're a student, however, these services are free. Not only that, they each pay you to do a search, and some other things, like take tutorials on the advanced features of their sites. This is a bit like a cocaine dealer offering you a free hit the first time, and supplying you the mirror and $100 bill. You save up the points, and eventually you're able to redeem them--kind of like the Coke Rewards or frequent-flyer miles. The point of all this: LexisNexis just paid for my copy of Apollo Justice. |
|
| Author: | Starbvck [ Wed Nov 11, 2009 6:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Legal Education of an Ace Attorney Player |
A few things on the Haunted House case, before I get too deeply into it. When you buy a house, the mortgage company usually requires a house inspection and a termite inspection before they give the loan. I think this may be required by federal law, but I’m not sure. In the house inspection, a couple of people come, turn on all the appliances, look at the plumbing, the wiring, and everything, and write a report on things like code violations, poor construction, or old appliances. This costs about $300. The termite inspector looks for termite damage. This costs about $100. This is what the Court meant with the “structural engineer and Terminix man”. Home sales operate on two principles in different states. In “Duty to Disclose” states, such as California and Washington, the seller has to give notice of possible problems to the property. In “Caveat Emptor”[1] states, like New York and Virginia, the house is sold as-is, and it is the buyer’s responsibility to inspect the property and withdraw the bid if there’s a problem. The practical result is that in Duty to Disclose states, the seller pays for the house inspection and termite inspection, and in Caveat Emptor states, the buyer pays. The question here is if there is a limit to caveat emptor. The house:  A website for spirit mediums offering home inspection services ~~~~ [1] Yes, more Latin. It means "Let the buyer beware". This is common enough that there's no good English phrase to use as a substitute. |
|
| Page 5 of 5 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|
