Depp v Heard: Elaine Played Herself By Asking A Tricky Question
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ต.ค. 2024
- Patreon: / runkleofthebailey
Locals: runkleofthebai...
BTC address: bc1qdqzpz6ny6w35qyl2rnasshjm60jvwcjgllwcay
All comments for information only. Do not take anything as legal advice--if you have a legal issue, contact a lawyer directly so that you can received advice tailored to your situation. All views expressed are solely those of the creator.
Elaine is a paper-pusher lawyer. She settles everything out of court and this kind of case isn't even her forté. She's not a trial lawyer and it showed badly.
Elaine is just not smart enough to pull off something like that. And Dr Curry is bright and can't be fooled.
These transcripts are amazing. She was so much more unprofessional than we thought
As annoying and unprofessional as she was during trial that could be her greatest asset in other cases.
I could easily see Elaine hounding other lawyers so much in negotiations that they just give into her. I could see lots of divorce attorneys just throwing up their hands and giving her what she wants.
Her style or annoying personality did help her in this case though. Heard despite subpoenas and even a court order never had to turn over her electronic devices for data dumps. She just got to only turn over what she wanted and keep the rest secret. Meanwhile they had all of Depp's stuff and got to use it against him.
If anyone else did that they'd have sat in jail rather than got a trial where she just didn't turn over ordered evidence to the other side.
Also when caught red handed fabricating evidence the jury didn't get the standard don't believe any of it instruction any other person would get under similar circumstances. They got watered down wishy-washy instructions.
Hell when caught lying the jury didn't even get the standard don't trust this person perjury instruction.
Elaine sucked at some things in this trial but was very good at hounding the judge enough to get really special treatment for her client.
Elaine's grating personality is both her biggest weakness and her greatest asset. She walked all over the judge in amazing ways sometimes. She also protected her from any real consequences for Heard's behavior before and during the trial.
With a client like Heard that was pretty much all she could do. Just minimize the damages. With that she did an amazing job.
I mean she's a piece of shit for the ways she did all of it but she did the very tough job of protecting Heard from herself.
Well that was only because of her client and all the lies she had to cover up. lets not give her lawyer Al the credit😂
correct?
Picking persons for their political views or social stances or other opinions or their looks does not work as well as picking persons for their skills and experience.
Total disregard for the Spirit of the Law
Dr. Curry was such a strong witness.
She made even more mistakes than we originally thought. Amazing. Keep ‘em coming!
AH may use evidence to sue Elaine next 😮
Amica cream?! What a doofus.
@@PuddilyOopsYep! She doesn’t do her homework. I sat there thinking, “Does she mean Arnica?” 😂
@@PuddilyOopsI agree !
Yeah man keep these videos coming! Just had a discussion the other day with my partner about this case. Somehow they still think Johnny may actually be more abusive than amber heard. I saw no compelling evidence of that, and a lot to the contrary.
What prevents the witness from simply stating, "I've been prohibited from testifying on this subject due to pre-trial motions?"
That's what happens when your entire case relies on lying to the jury, hiding information from the jury, and trying to creatively twist what little truth you're giving the jury.
Good summing up of the AH defence ! 👍
Please keep going on the transacriprs do Camille and Elaine’s head to head.
I really hated that judge ruled out color histograph questions from expert witness for some strange reason
Now, this was Depp vs. Hurd. Imagine what Trump vs. the People is going to look like! Trump won't even be asked to the witness box because he lies too much!
@@petervansan1054 The judge ruled out a lot of things and it was mostly because Amber's team wanted to hide all the evidence. The reasoning for the histograph thing is likely that the judge saw it and didn't really get it, so the lawyers successfully argued the jury would be incapable of understanding it either, and so it wouldn't be helpful.
Elaine should absolutely never attempt to be “clever” in front of a jury. Hard no.
she couldn't even be clever with Morgan Tremaine lol
I need to make a sign that says "no clever zone!" Or a red circle with a slash over the word "clever".
Lol, Elaine thought she could score points by using muffins. This entire trial was an epic failure for her.
Madam Amica
@@missmew3499. She wanted to show Depp’s psychologist told her husband Amber was the client she wanted muffins for. Elaine’s approach was trying to catch Johnny’s team in a lie but they played it straightforward, no tricks. Elaine was too focused on tricking and finding tricks on Johnny’s team and it wasn’t there.
I love to see the whole story, even after the trial is over
You just made me decide I want a parody movie of this court case! I want it to be slapstick and hilarious! Maybe something like Benny Hill or Monty Python! The more bonkers the better! We can make Amber an evil old witch and Johnny a spry young hero! With all of these girl boss movies that disempower men one male power movie that demonizes women would be fantastic!
So, basically, she fought to get the Court to prohibit Dr. Curry from discussing a certain analysis of Heard's psychological damage (or lack thereof), and then Elaine tried to use that prohibition as a way to get Dr. Curry to imply to the jury that she was unable to _make_ that analysis professionally when she'd simply been barred by the Court from discussing it. What a sleaze-bucket. Attorneys with firm cases don't have to play those kinds of games.
Mmm kook knowledge
Ng
She wanted to have her cake and eat it too. Classic
It wasn't a criminal case, but if it was, a move like that would mean Depp's team can ask all sorts of questions because she opened that door. What an idiot!
It’s also actually textbook GASLIGHTING.
How on earth is blatant jury manipulation not cause for immediate mistrial? Imagine if they used a similar trick for something substantial that the jury then relied heavily on in their verdict, how could that ever be considered a just outcome for the affected party?
Camille Vasquez is a freaking superhero in this trial.
These clips will never get old!
Ian, we asked EDB💜 to have you & Rob on for sidebar read-thrus. She would be Elaine, Rob would be Rottenborn/Chew, and you would be Camille. We ALL want this to happen! Make it so Mr Sulu!
But if EDB is ElAINE, who is going to say ElAINE?
Excellent point!
I think it is better to have many legal point's of view. I get you may want to have role play though.
This needs to happen because these sidebars (and depos!) are peak theater. I was actually cackling at some of Chew's sidebars (like when he referred to Dr. Speigel as "whackadoodle Speigel" 😂).
@@joloy5394 It would be cool if they roleplayed then broke down what's happening in the sidebars. I feel like that would be fun and also super informative!
Dr Curry was very sharp and quick witted on the stand. Being a psychologist, and also having stood as an expert witness in the past, she likely was able to recognise all the tricks Elaine was trying to pull. Her entire section of testimony on the stand was in incredible display. I wouldn't be surprised if other legal teams hire her in the future off the back of her performance in this case.
Dr. Curry was the most effective psych witness I've seen; a clear thinking and efficient communicator. Dr. Hughes came off sloppy and disorganized in comparison.
It's great to see how Elaine messed up more than we caught on with the trial.
I'm honestly wondering if she did anything right. And I'm wondering if all of the people she ever litigated against before were just idiots.
Elaine,’s just not the sharpest knife in the drawer
@@sannehansen4156No , but she is very devious and manipulative .
I, too, am surprised that such was possible.
Like, she's insanely lucky that Judge A didn't count the Closing Statement Sidebars against her time, which would have been perfectly reasonable. In fact, I suspect that the only reason Judge A _didn't_ was that she wanted to be sure that the trial wouldn't be thrown out on appeal based on claims of judicial bias, because such leniency demonstrates the opposite of anti-Heard bias.
What a dirty trick she was trying to play.
The freaking sidebars are way more hysterical than the trial! EDB covered some today, Barlow, AHs crazy Psych witness, , but will do Speigel sidebars next!
Was that a members only live stream? Can't find it
@@21Michichi it was.
And there were lots of them. 😂
This is slimy. Shouldn't Depp's attorney be able to redirect and ask why wasn't Dr. Curry able to make that opinion? At this point, I think the door is so open, Depp's side should be able to out AH's side as being slimy and purposefully trying to confuse the jury by a bad implication.
Yes, please keep giving us these! I really think Elaine wasn't necessarily a trial lawyer is borne up by mistakes like this.
Interesting and entertaining, imo.
She and the lawyer from the 80s from the Gwyneth Paltrow trial should start a business named "not exactly up to it, but we're trying".
@@Ichneumonxxi mean paltrow won. But he wasn't awesome.
I wouldn’t let her sell my house never mind be my lawyer in court. She was hailed as this excellent lawyer before the trial as I understand it. She fumbled her way through the trial and her whole team seemed unprepared and incompetent. I’m not sure how much of this was the fault of AH lying and misleading them though.
@@guitarman704 They knew. they had all the depositions and evidence. She was great at settling cases. she was NOT a trial attorney and was not used to it at all. She knew she didn't have a leg to stand on and tryed every trick in the book including playing dumb.
If you don't want the witness to walk through the door, don't open it!
"I wanted to establish that she couldn't testify to that"
But then that would be about the motion in limine, which isn't the jury's business, it's the judge's.
It's so obvious what vile trickery she's trying to pull. Kind of the same issue as what Amber has: She's not as smart as she thinks everyone else is dumb.
Also obvious how little trial experience she has. Reportedly great at depos, terrible in court.
@@heartscapesreiki1496 definitely not great at trial. 6 weeks, never learned to use a microphone 🎤
I know absolutely nothing about court procedure but it feels to me that once a lawyer tries to mislead the jury on purpose with some "clever" little word play, then it should become the jury's business. Doesn't matter which side the lawyer is on. And if it ends up hurting the client's case, then they're not a very good lawyer, are they.
What answer was she looking for? "No because you won't let me say it"
Fascinating to see how the sidebars work. To me it was obvious Elaine was skeezy throughout this trial and I think the Jury saw that.
When the witness knows the rules better than the lawyer does.
Interesting. So she is even worse than we thought. Talk about dirty tactics. It makes it even more absurd and hilarious that in the post interviews she tried to convey it was JD’s team who was playing dirty hard ball. I think it’s great you are doing this. Air it all out so everyone can see exactly what AH’s team did to try and win their case.
Projection gives them away! Each absurd accusation of Depp and his team is a confession 🙃
Ready for something amusing?
She's a better lawyer than many. One might even argue she is pretty damn average. And it's why I suspect many lawyers avoid going to trial - or being in trial themselves do to the nature of the environment. It's stressful, it's a performance act, and you have exactly one chance to get it right - under those circumstances most people are liable to falter.
@@formes2388 sure, lawyers will feel the pressure of trial especially televised. And there’s a difference between making mistakes with their integrity in tact
Pay attention to what they are accusing you or others of. It is often an unwitting confession.
im at that point anytime an obvious leftist tells me to look at someone elses fault, i stare even harder at the accuser to see what they hiding.
What if she had answered "No because you filed a motion that prevents me from doing so."
I am still stunned to this day, at how her lawyers could go up there day after day and ask questions they didn't know the answers to. I thought this was law 101.
NEVER ask questions you don't know the answer to
What?
@@007nadineL In court, questions are meant to lead to a certain direction. If you dont know whether the truthful answer will lead to a conclusion you dont want the jury or judge to go with, then it is best to avoid it. Discovery is where all these surprises are suppose to be, not in the courtroom during trial.
@@007nadineL assuming you're not being facetious, it's generally well known that there is immense risk in asking questions that you don't already _know_ how the witness will respond. It's like in My Cousin Vinny, when the incompetent defense lawyer asks about someone not wearing glasses to see across a parking lot... he _believed_ that asking how the witness could be certain about what they saw without their glasses would be "I can't be," only to be told that they were reading glasses, for the exact opposite scenario.
In this case, Elaine _believed_ that Dr Curry would interpret the question as "are you legally allowed to say this," but didn't _know_ that, and as a result opened herself and her client to a damning response to a question _Elaine herself_ wanted to be blocked from the jury's ears.
@@JenSell1626 what, if any, hearsay eliciting questions can I get away with?
@@JenSell1626😂😂😂
If the Dr. had answered, “I have been prohibited from giving an opinion….,” how might the jury have viewed that! COULD she answer that way?
I am surprised that the witness didn't say "I was forbidden by the court from including anything about that in the report" as the answer to the follow up. 🤣I know I wouldn't appreciate a lawyer trying to make it sound like I was incompetent, rather than being restricted by the court.
Probably she was explicitly told not to discuss such restrictions. Similarly, Depp's lawyers probably didn't want to skirt such restrictions by fighting over that final question, since the result was still a net win in their favor.
@@xxgni mean, if you ask the question like that, you're opening the door again.
@@alex2143 You're right, but in this case the question was worded a bit carefully, so the door wasn't opened quite as wide.
@@xxgn Sure, but as a witness, you're supposed to answer the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth.
So if Heard's attorneys banned her from putting anything like that in her report, and then Heard's attorneys ask "NOWHERE in your report does it say ANYTHING about xyz, correct?" you're well within you're rights to answer "Correct, I wasn't allowed to put that in my report pursuant to an order by this court." And there's not a thing that Heard's attorneys could've done about that. They asked the question, they don't then get to not like the fact that the witness answered it.
Really though, the lesson here should be: if you fight in court to keep that door closed, then don't try to bruteforce the lock.
😆 🤣 😂 😹 😆
Interesting!! I'd love more sidebar transcripts. Dr. Curry was professional and a strong witness. Elaine proved her incompetence in many ways all through the trial, IMO.
Yes and Elaine tried to be Camille several times by cutting Dr. Curry off, saying rude things like, "Dr. Curry, I asked you a question and I'd like you to try and answer it".
the channel @cheap seats opinion goes over all of the side bar transcripts. she breaks them down by trial day, and includes all necessary clips for better understanding. emily d baker also goes over quite a bit of them on her channel. the transcripts are fascinating. they completely changed my opinion of elaine bredehoft. she may have been ill-prepared, unorganized, and easily flustered, but she also played dirty. at times she deliberately went against what the judge ruled during a side bar the moment she was able to. she consistently feigned ignorance, and literally argued with the judge about the law. she argued AH should be able to speak about "photo evidence" of her injuries that weren't in evidence. she couldn't recall specific evidence when directly asked. when AH testified that she couldn't fulfill her pledges because she had "6 million in lawyers fees", and JD's brought up the fact that, actually, AH had lied on the stand, bc her attorney fees were paid by her insurance and elon musk, elaine acted clueless. she allowed eve barlow into the court with AH, despite her being permanently barred from attending the trial the previous day. she repeatedly failed to properly instruct dr. hughes to avoid reading verbatim from her notes. when the judge told JD's attorneys that they would be allowed to look at said notes, elaine claimed that they already had them, bc everything she was testifying to was already in evidence🙄. i could go on lol, but i encourage you to read them for yourself. you will be entertained by the shenanigans, if nothing else.
Just goes to show as bad as we thought Elaine was she was worse.
Keep em coming. I can't help but wonder if Elaine B bought her bar qualification from one of those certificate mills that churns out fake qualifications for a fee.
Yes! Keep 'em comin' Runkle!
Judge A suffers no fools and I'm here for it!
Please continue, these transcripts are hilarious in context.
As someone who got into lawtube specifically because of this case, this is extremely interesting. I can't wait for more! Thank you Runkle!
I love Runkles Canadian accent 😎
If you like allegations and shade in court filings, if you have the time, I recommend watching Emily D Baker covering Tati v Swanson. So much pointless YT drama in a court filing. "This is a case brought about by the defendants greed." And prayers to to God of speculation 😂.
@@spamachuchan8824 Ooh, yes! I have watched a video from EDB that I thoroughly enjoyed but I definitely need to watch more, I've heard nothing but great things! If you have any additional recommendations other than Tati vs Swanson, I would appreciate them greatly! 😁
@@blazingstar9638 I agree, such a beautiful accent. It's hard to explain.. but it's soothing, yet harsh. I imagine he's holding a glass of scotch in one hand off camera. 😂
And the court answered: yep
Ffs Elaine 🤦♀️
Please do keep giving us the information. I watched the whole trial and it is so good to get the sidebars through your coverage. It's extremely interesting. Thank you Ian.
The more guilty the client is, the more their lawyer has to rely on tricks like this.
Oh my goodness. I can’t wait to hear what was said between the lawyers, while Amber was on the stand.
Fascinating! I am sure everyone is as wide-eyed as I am. My respect for lawyers and judges is going up and up.
So interested in the sidebars! I was so curious during the case because there were just so many of them.
Man, and here I thought Elaine was just playing stupid games to win stupid prizes.
It turns out she was going for bonus rounds too.
Hey Runkle - I really enjoy the insight you provide on your channel. As far as transcripts go - how about that long sidebar between Camille and Rottenborn that led to Camille dismantling Amber on (second) cross. You know, the one where the both of them decided to take the stand again.
So Elaine gave the opposing counsel an aha moment. brilliant strategy Elaine.😂
This was VERY interesting. Please continue!!! I personally think courts have turned more into lawyers playing chess than just coming forward with all the facts and letting them fall where they may. This chess-playing drags out court cases & causes them to be ridiculously expensive either to individuals or tax payers.
I totally agree. Where is upholding the law and truth. Its all dirty tactics and making a mockery of the real victims and twisting the facts to make them fit. No wonder people are afraid to come forward. Jmo
Blame the adversarial system. If I had millions on the line, I'd probably try to gain every possible advantage too.
That is literally how court has worked since the beginning of time...or a t least since lawyers started.
@@ArgentLeftoversthey take an oath and then go rogue
Its always been that way.
Oh, please do carry on! These tidbits are golden!
On the rewatch crew here. I loved this little snippet of how Elaine tried to pull a fast one and it ended up biting her instead. I would love to hear about more of these moments.....as side bars both fascinate and frustrate me because you don't know what was being discussed, etc. So more, please, sir!
My favorite legalese bit from the trial is when Camille Vasquez on cross-examining Amber Heard was so narrow that Elaine Brederhoft's redirect was a bunch of attempts to get around the restrictions on redirect by using "what, if anything, do you recall about...."
Please do more sidebars. It's fun and educational. I had no idea lawyers could be as shady as Elaine was in this example.
Absolutely - keep going through them please.
While I'm done with Depp v the Liar, I do like hearing about how lawyers play around in trials, and seeing Elaine screw up does make me a little happy. I'm in favor of more of this.
“Dep v The Liar” 😂
That truly was the most incompetent team to hire. Impressive.
I’d love to hear more of the sidebars. There were so many that I think there’s going to be more juicy nerdy legal stuff to uncover
3:13 Oooof, that's manipulative af. I can see why Elaine agreed to take AH as a client.
Prime example of , "Be careful what you wish for". Thanks for the video.
How in the world does someone who presumably went through the bar exam, let alone law school, not know that if you ask the witness about something that was otherwise ruled outside the scope, then they can answer it?
I have a professional degree in an unrelated field with a little bit of law, outside the US, and I know that.
Do some of the big ones during JD's and AH's testimony. Those would be interesting.
She was a gift that kept of giving. Karma Elaine.
Oh. I was hoping there was going to be a second trial. Season 1 was so good.
while it would be taxing for Johnny, I would love to have it. The whole thing was so good.
Please don't forget that everybody involved here are real people. Yes, including Amber, and yes, including Elaine.
@@alexmartinelli6231 exactly
I binge watched when I had Covid 🤣
Absolutely, give us more! Love from Germany 😊
That witness was great. Was she also a lawyer? I can imagine someone with less legal confidence falling for Elaine’s trap
No she was a forensic psychologist
I think the witness really just understood the question as it was asked, rather than Elaine's attempt to be tricky.
Elaine asked what she CAN do, not what she's ALLOWED to do.
That was extremely tricky wordsmithing she tried to get away with. If I were a jury member, I would have interpreted the question as whether she was able to say, not whether she was allowed to say.
I want to hear the objections during Camille's cross examination in particular why the arrest record was left out. Or the side bar during Richard Marks about brining in the UK judgment. These videos are so cool thank you Runkle!!! Can't wait for more
Various editing additions:
I found where they are available but I still need Runkle's explanations 😅
I'm reading through day 18 cross and don't get most of the legal stuff (and it seems neither does Elaine because the Judge is often explaining it to her) but it is so satisfying to see that the Judge did tell Elaine "don't get so animated when you lose objects"
Also day 18 transcript page 5382 the judge side bar admonishes Elaine for "what if any" and tells her there are proper ways to ask questions
Omg the Judge actually said "prior consistent statements can't be testimony that's in evidence /thats not how it works" (page 5392) I love Judge A so much more reading these
That's so hilarious! We knew Elaine wasn't a great attorney, and the transcripts only reinforce the opinion.
How embarrassing for her for this to be public now.
Just proves she's only ever done depositions where anything and everything can be asked and never done trials before
Where are they published?
Oh, I want to read them, too! Can you tell me where to find/download them?
... If I had a nickel for every time the judge had to point out "That was your own question" to these numbskulls well I would have 2 nickles but it is weird it happened twice.
I'm enjoying reading through the sidebars. The really shocking thing I read was what Elaine did during voir dire by going 'off script', Depp's team and Judge P were not happy. Oh, and finding out that Elaine was previously a judge. 😱
❤ Dr. Curry!
Please, continue with this. I didn't watch the trial at the time, just some parts later. Seeing these individual special moments is a treat.
It was wild and a lot of fun to watch. Granted some of the topics were awful, but knowing she was lying made it somewhat better. But it was hilarious most of the time. Weird ass witnesses, funny lawyers, dumb lawyers.
You missed riveting video . I watched all night and slept in the day , much to my husband’s chagrin .
It's amazing that she isn't thrown in jail for disgusting manipulations like this. I guess, we can thank our flawed injustice system for this.
As far as I'm concerned, this is the gift that keeps on giving. Thanks, Ian!
I can’t get enough of this train wreck. Keep ‘em coming.
Love hearing about the side bars ... was so interested when it all happened to know what they were saying
The exact same thing happen'ed When Kate Moss was mentioned I think by AH. That opened the door to Kate Moss to being able to testify. Interested though, can a witness Just say "I have been prevented from answering that question by your council"
Call me crazy, but I am happy to hear even more about this trial!
There's a lot more of us!
Omg we know what happened at the side bars now?? I need someone to make a full series about all the nonsense that went down there 😂
I love these. They’re super useful for teaching concepts in college mock trial. This one and the breakdown of the cross examination during the Kyle Rittenhouse case were invaluable please keep making them.
Would MsCurry have been able to say “No I didn’t testify to that because YOU prevented me from answering that question”. ??
Would that have worked?
I would of liked that to have happened 😁
Id love your take on why not one single juror has come forward at all to give their take..
I wouldn’t want Amber Turd’s flying monkeys after me! Hellll no that bish is violent and mentally ill
Elaine struggling with the concept that being instructed not to give testimony does not suddenly erase your professional qualifications.
I like seeing the sidebars and the analysis, so keep it up!
I notice that Dr Curry's answer was more general. She didn't answer about Amber suffering specifically after any supposed defamation. Her answer is that there were no signs of any psych decline "since she's been with Mr. Depp".
In circumstances like this when a lawyer is trying to be sneaky the witness should be allowed to say something along the lines of "you know that the court has ruled that I am not allowed to answer that question fully in the presence of the jury". That might prevent lawyers misleadingly trying to imply that a witness is incapable of answering, or unwilling to answer, the substance of a question - not least because it would indicate to the jury that this was a hot topic to which they should pay attention.
That also seems like a good way to word it to avoid any contempt charges.
I think another good way to answer is to clearly state which meaning of the word "can" is used here. For example by saying "I am professionally capable of conducting such analysis. But as you know I was explicitly forbidden to do it for this specific case."
@@christianbarnay2499 Right on! Elaine would have to study your reply for a long time. TBH I don’t think she’s capable.
"You prohibited me from speaking about this"
That was not the only mistake they made. Those sidebars are more interesting than big parts of the trial itself.
Thanks please do keep going through them with us
That was great!!! Camille was just so good in this trial. It was entertaining to watch how much Elaine put here foot in her mouth and how awful AH’s testimony was
I've never seen a lawyer so unfamiliar with how objections work, how to ask unobjectionable questions, or what the rule of completeness was before. Watching Elaine try to "lawyer" was like watching a 5-year-old try to maneuver around in a ball pit.
This case was really interesting for how much of a detailed breakdown of the legal process we could get. I would love to hear any more of your insights that come out of the transcripts.
Dr. Curry was much sharper than Elaine!
Love it!!😂 darn you Elaaainnne (Emily voice) you just keep trying and it don't work🤣🤣🤣 Absolutely LOVE these Runkle .....pleeeeaasssse keep doing them!!!❤ it's so awesome to know what was happening behind the scenes and get better understanding 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
what is the point of her asking that question if not to intentionally mislead the jury into thinking the wrong thing? that's what it sounded like you described. she asked the question knowing the answer is supposed to be "i can not answer that" so the jury would assume she means something entirely different? why is that allowed?
Runkle! We need these, keep them coming. It is such a good thing to put into perspective what happens during those conversations with the judge. Having your input on the behind the scenes is extremely interesting
That is so interesting that a question was asked concerning an important part of the testimony that the person on the stand was NOT supposed to answer. Having dealt with a slimy, slick lawyer for the past two years, dirty tricks seem to be the norm???
Love this !!! Thanks for sharing !!! Yes keep going through side bars
This is so insightful! So happy Mr Depp had this moment in front of his peers! He deserves all the best!
Interesting!!! Do more! Love your analysis
Let's use the court to ban them from saying no. Sir, yes or no, did you murder the victim?
Ive followed the entire trial and all your coverage since the beginning and im super interested to see more. Definitely keep em coming!
I needddd Camille Vázquez one!
Drilling Amber and doing the “LEADING!!! 🙄”
Thanks for doing this, Runkle. Loved to see what happened at the sidebar.
Anything good from the day when Camille objected to approximately 700,000 questions from Elaine?
Yes, please keep giving us these! It's very interesting. :)
I have learned so much about court tactics and how NOT to perform in front a jury or court of law from this case