May 23, 2005
Courtroom Drama

At this moment, Mark Braden and Dale Foreman are still going through the bizarre roleplay exercise to introduce Sam Reed's testimony by deposition into evidence. Braden is asking the questions. Foreman is reading Sam Reed's answers. I don't understand why they have to waste valuable court time on these theatrics. Why can't they just submit the deposition testimony as evidence. It's posted on the SoS website, after all.

UPDATE: A legal expert e-mails:

If I recall, the parties agreed that the Secretary of State cannot be compelled to testify as a witness at the trial. Hence, under CR 32(a)(3), the deposition is being read into the record as a witness statement.
The relevant portion of CR 32(a)(3) states:
The deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any party for any purpose if the court finds: ... (E) upon application and notice, that such exceptional circumstances exist as to make it desirable, in the interest of justice and with due regard to the importance of presenting the testimony of witnesses orally in open court, to allow the deposition to be used.
I can see the rule which requires it, but it's still a bizarre exercise.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 23, 2005 03:33 PM | Email This
Comments
1. "I don't understand why they have to waste valuable court time on these theatrics. Why can't they just submit the deposition testimony as evidence. It's posted on the SoS website, after all."

The same reason lawyers use latin. To make it look more sophisticated (convoluted) than it really is.

Posted by: Dogbert on May 23, 2005 03:43 PM
2. As an attorney, this is standard trial practice. It's a tactical decision whether to do it or not. It is usually done at jury trials, not bench trials.

The point in doing is to make sure the judge is aware of the testimony. While this judge may be conscientious enough to read the entire record, after awhile your eyes glaze over and you may miss key points.

If I were trying this case, I would do the same thing--however I'd be a little more selective about what I would take out of Reed's Deposition--limit to key testimony. Some of this stuff is not key to the case.

Posted by: B2 on May 23, 2005 03:44 PM
3. The GOP **chose*** to do it this way, perhaps for dramatic impact!! They could have submitted the written depositions instead, but chose not to.

Someone suggested they chose to read it, so that they could talk to the press about it. Sounds reasonable to me, since originally they had only planned on reading the deposition testimony they had selected. The judge forced them to read all of the deposition testimony selected by all the parties, not just the GOP.

Posted by: chew2 on May 23, 2005 03:45 PM
4. I'm listening to Goldy with Carlson. Goldy is NOT a worthy opponent for Stefan. He is as ridiculous those lawyers the Dems sent to court.

Posted by: Michele on May 23, 2005 03:52 PM
5. Stranger than fiction!
Actually, before the reading started, Foreman ask the court and the Democrats
how to proceed with this. That is, should he read only the part the Republicans wanted?
Or to also read everything that SOS Reed's lawyer, and the Democrats wanted read.
Foreman said that it would only take about 30-40 minutes to read the portion that the Republicans
wanted read into the record. The court, SOS Reed's lawyer (why does he need his own lawyer?),
and the Democrats wanted everything from this deposition to be read now, instead of reading it piecemeal.
That's why it took so long. Not exactly exciting stuff.

Posted by: otto on May 23, 2005 05:36 PM
6. Craziest dang think I've ever seen!

Good example of how our state is obsessed with process over results.

Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 23, 2005 05:41 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?