Wird geladen
Finden Sie Ihr nächstes Lieblings-book
Werden Sie noch heute Mitglied und lesen Sie 30 Tage kostenlosBeginnen Sie Ihre kostenlosen 30 TageInformationen über das Buch
Trial Advocacy in Animal Law
Von Russ Mead
Buchaktionen
Mit Lesen beginnenLänge: 617 Seiten8 Stunden
- Herausgeber:
- Russ Mead
- Freigegeben:
- Aug 15, 2018
- ISBN:
- 9780463996171
- Format:
- Buch
Beschreibung
This is a new generation of a trial advocacy course book. It is combination text book, and exercise book. The format is an e-book that is available in several popular formats to allow reading on a wide variety of devices. Animal Law is one of the fastest growing fields of law, from law schools to bar association practice sections. This is the first trial advocacy book to use animal law examples in both the substantive discussions as well as the practice exercises. The final mock trial materials are as real world as possible. The complaint and answer are what practicing lawyers would expect to see in a hard litigated court file. The final mock trial materials are based on a nuisance lawsuit brought by individual property owners suing a hog farm. In addition, the book includes a collection of actual complaints filed in animal law related litigation.
Informationen über das Buch
Trial Advocacy in Animal Law
Von Russ Mead
Länge: 617 Seiten8 Stunden
Beschreibung
This is a new generation of a trial advocacy course book. It is combination text book, and exercise book. The format is an e-book that is available in several popular formats to allow reading on a wide variety of devices. Animal Law is one of the fastest growing fields of law, from law schools to bar association practice sections. This is the first trial advocacy book to use animal law examples in both the substantive discussions as well as the practice exercises. The final mock trial materials are as real world as possible. The complaint and answer are what practicing lawyers would expect to see in a hard litigated court file. The final mock trial materials are based on a nuisance lawsuit brought by individual property owners suing a hog farm. In addition, the book includes a collection of actual complaints filed in animal law related litigation.
- Herausgeber:
- Russ Mead
- Freigegeben:
- Aug 15, 2018
- ISBN:
- 9780463996171
- Format:
- Buch
Über den Autor
Russ Mead is the Shared Earth Foundation Visiting Professor at Lewis & Clark Law School. Russ teaches in the JD program and the Animal Law LLM program. Russ is a frequent speaker and guest lecturer at animal law conferences and law schools, including Cornell, Stanford, and Vanderbilt. Previously, he served as General Counsel for Best Friends Animal Society. He was the General Counsel and interim Executive Director of Farm Sanctuary. Russ holds a BS in Accounting from Arizona State University, an MBA from Lindenwood College, and a JD from St. Louis University School of Law, and earned a CPA license. He lives with his wife Laura on the Oregon Coast. In his spare time, he attempts to capture the spirit of animals in ink wash paintings. Russ is the author of the textbooks, “Nonprofit Animal Law’, "Trial Advocacy in Animal Law", "Farm Animal Law - Readings and Materials", "Grass Roots Animal Legislation", and "Step By Step Legislative Drafting for Advocates".
Bezogen auf Trial Advocacy in Animal Law
Buchvorschau
Trial Advocacy in Animal Law - Russ Mead
Trial Advocacy in Animal Law
By Russ Mead
Copyright Russ Mead 2018
Smash Words Edition
Table of Contents
Chapter One Introduction
Chapter Two Storytelling
Chapter Three Objections
Chapter Four Opening Statements
Chapter Five Fact Witnesses
Chapter Six Expert Witnesses
Chapter Seven Exhibits
Chapter Eight Closing Arguments
Chapter Nine Voir Dire
Chapter Ten Settlement Conference
Chapter Eleven Case File Goodwin v. County Hog Farms
Chapter Twelve Lambert v. West
Chapter Thirteen Two Fathers Named Tavonga
Chapter Fourteen Seabluff Humane V. Brownsville Pet Foods
Chapter Fifteen Aesop’s Fables
Chapter Sixteen Adler Rock v. Noodle the Dog
Chapter Seventeen Animal Litigation Cases
Chapter Eighteen Acknowledgements
Chapter One Introduction
Introduction
Exercise chapter one
Introduction
You can do this! In the real world, trial lawyers come in all types. Or more to the point, GOOD trial lawyers come in all types. This book recognizes the diversity in the modern Bar. Whatever your personality, whatever your style, this book will help you migrate from the classroom to the courtroom.
Animal law is exploding. The field of animal law is growing in both law schools and bar association sections throughout the country. This expansion continues even further as evidenced by the creation of new animal law courses and conferences throughout the world. The time has come for a trial advocacy course specifically tailored to animal law. This book is the textbook for a trial advocacy course specifically designed for students interested in animal law.
Examples used in the book. All the examples in this book are animal law related. The main materials are based on a nuisance suit against a CAFO (Confined Animal Feeding Operation). The setup is that a group of homeowners, who live in close proximity to a hog farm, are suing the farm. Another example used in the book centers around a custody dispute case between a couple who, after breaking up, both want the family dog. One legal storytelling exercise uses a photo of a pair bonded set of mixed breed dogs as the basis to create a story of how these dogs came to be looking for a new home. All examples in this book are animal law-related.
The case file. The main case file used in this book is far more real world than other skills-based trial advocacy case books. Complaints filed in the real world are long documents, often with multiple parties. We strive for this real world feel by using documents that look like something you might encounter in an actual trial.
How to. The how to
sections of this book takes the following approach: When you are learning something new, the best approach is to concentrate on the basics. The instructional sections of this book limit the number of items to pay attention to when preparing. Not all elements of conducting a good cross-examination have the same level of importance. This book focuses on the most important of those elements.
The right amount of material. The amount of our collective attention spans is getting shorter. The lecture type materials written in this book keep this in mind. There is enough material to allow the reader to try their hand at the different elements of a trial. But there is not so much material to burden the reader to the point they stop reading.
Class exercises. The heart of the materials are the in-class exercises. Read, discuss, then do. The course may or may not end in a mock trial. If it does, there is a rich set of real world type materials that allow you to try a case against a hog farm CAFO under a nuisance theory. But you will have plenty of practice before you ever get to the point of chairing a mock trial.
Actual lawsuit complaints. The final set of materials are a collection of actual civil animal law-oriented complaints and animal criminal law charging documents. This allows for a weekly discussion of some of the many ways litigation is used in modern animal law.
RD 7.19.18
Exercise chapter one
Introduction exercise
Good litigators are good storytellers. But unlike writing fiction, the stories we tell must be factually correct. So to be a good litigator, you also need to be a good interviewer to gather facts. In litigation we often use oral questioning to give us the information we need to move forward with the lawsuit. We interview our clients. We interview fact witnesses. Even a formal deposition is really an interview in front of opposing counsel and a court reporter.
With this exercise we are going to jump in and try our hand at both interviewing and storytelling. This exercise has a secondary purpose. The exercises are also designed to allow the participants in this group to get to know each other.
But the most important part of this exercise though is to drive home an important point about being a litigator. Litigators come in all personality types. Good litigators can be right out of law school. Good litigators can also have 30 years of experience. The soft-spoken lawyer can captivate a jury. Other litigators might speak to the jury with the finesse of a seasoned actor. Good litigators can be highly detail-oriented. Other litigators, just as good, can lean more towards explaining everything in the big picture. Good litigators can be tall. Good litigators can be short. Good litigators can be in wheelchairs. Good litigators can speak with impediment. Good litigators can be of any gender. Good litigators can be of no identifiable gender.
Put bluntly, everyone in this room can be a good litigator.
But you can’t fake being a good litigator. You must be a good litigator. The first step in learning this craft is to recognize that you must be true to yourself. You must not try to become a personality that you are not. Lawyers who are true to themselves when they are litigating are perceived as honest, trustworthy, and forthright. They become transparent to the jury. They become a conduit by which the jury and the judge learn about facts in the case. But not just any random facts in the case. The facts that are important to your theory of the case. From all the facts you learn during interviewing, you must decide which facts to put in the front of the judge and jury’s minds.
Instructions
Pair up into groups of two. Preferably, do not pair yourself with someone who you already know well. This probably means that the person sitting next to is not going to be a good candidate for you to match up with for this one exercise.
Spend five minutes each interviewing each other. (10 minutes total.) Learn about your partner's personality. Explore their background. Gather facts that you think are important for someone to know about the person sitting across from you. I'm not giving you a list of questions to ask. Figuring out what questions to ask is one of the important skills that you're going to learn in this class. Also, the questions that I ask will be totally different from the question that somebody else asks. This goes back to the idea the good litigators come in all types and styles.
The next part of the exercise is for you to present your partner to the class.
When you are finished everyone in the room should have a general understanding of your partner. In this part of the exercise you must use two different techniques. You must explain to all of us items you think they're important about your partner. But also, you must ask questions of your partner. Those answers are part of the way you're communicating their personality and background to the group. Story telling through asking questions you know the answers to is also an important part of litigation.
But those are the only two rules. Again, you must spend part of your time talking to us. And you must spend part of your time asking your partner questions.
Timing
You'll each have five minutes to interview your partner, for a total of 10 minutes. Then, you will have five minutes of time to gather your thoughts. Use this time to figure out how you want to present your partner in front of the class.
Remember this is a safe environment. We are all supportive of you. And most important we celebrate and respect our collective diversity.
RD 8.7.18
Chapter Two Storytelling
Introduction to storytelling
Class exercise storytelling
Storytelling
No picture, no story
. That was the guiding principle of Michael Mountain, a founder of Best Friends Animal Society and editor-in-chief of its magazine for years. Evidence such as photos, videos, charts, objects, and the like are often available to us as trial lawyers in explaining our case to a jury. But for the most part it is up to us to create a picture for the jury through storytelling. Storytelling is essential to convince the jury of your theory of the case. Storytelling begins in voir dire and continues through opening statement, examination of witnesses, and closing argument. Each phase of the trial is an opportunity to advance your client’s story.
Storytelling is a learned art. We can study storytelling. We can practice how to tell stories. We can then adopt storytelling as a means to communicate in the courtroom.
There are basically four components to a story:
Characters including a main character
Conflict
The struggle
The goal of the main character
The characters
In a story, your client is the main character. As a trial lawyer you are telling the jury what happened
from your client’s perspective. The story should unfold as it happened to your client. The other characters include the opposing party, witnesses, and even those not present at trial. Characters, including the main character, are not necessarily people. The environment can be a character. An animal or a species of animal can be a character.
It is important for the jury to relate positively to your main character, your client. You have all seen at least on television the tough, accused criminal dressed in a suit during his trial. Doing so serves to soften his image and make the jury at least think better of him. You want to do the same through your story. In telling your client’s story, talk about their hopes and dreams. Share where they went to school or even details concerning their good grades. Talk about their career or other jobs. Clients have hobbies. They volunteer for organizations. They have families. In establishing for the jury your client as a character, keep in mind what you know about the jurors and the attributes of your client they may find more relatable. There may be a juror with the same occupation as your client. Some jurors may have children the same age as your client’s. You may want to emphasize what your client and the jurors have in common. In describing your client, you can offer a picture of someone the jury will want to side with in their verdict.
In this same way, you can use storytelling to create pictures for the jury of the opposing party and witnesses. Though, of course, you may want to emphasize negative attributes or activities of the opposing party or hostile witnesses!
An animal as a character is no different.
Conflict
Good stories have a conflict. In litigation, the conflict is typically the subject matter of the lawsuit. A couple that has broken up with both individuals asking for possession or custody of the family dog, is an obvious conflict. The dog who always barks at the letter carrier when the mail is delivered becomes a conflict when the USPS stops delivering mail to your client. There is a conflict when your client is keeping a colony of feral cats and the next-door neighbor is a wild bird enthusiast. All of these are examples of conflict that can be at the heart of litigation. As storytellers, we need to describe the conflict to the jury.
Struggle
The struggle is different from the conflict. The conflict is two parties with different demands, needs, and goals. The struggle is how this conflict has affected your client. The jury needs to hear about the struggle from your client’s perspective. They need to hear how your client worked hard to resolve the conflict to no avail. As an example, a cat was rescued after a hurricane. The cat is sent to an out of state shelter with instructions to find the cat a new home. But the original owner returns and finds the cat has been shipped out of state. The original owner wants the animal reunited with her family. But the new owners of the cat have now bonded with this scruffy tuxedo cat. Now everybody loves the cat. The struggle could be the family’s search for the missing cat. Describing the struggle of the family makes the story real.
Your client’s goal
You are telling a story from your client's perspective. The listener needs to know the goal of your client. What does your client want? The client’s goal is usually to seek relief in the lawsuit. But it doesn't need to be. Let's look at the case of a homeowner living next to a puppy mill. In the middle of the night, the dogs can be crying out for their puppies who were recently taken away. Your client, the plaintiff in this case, might be asking for monetary damages. But the real goal is to get enough money to move away from hearing the anguish of these dogs on a nightly basis.
A story arc
There is also an entirely different way to look at storytelling. Rather than looking at characters, conflict, struggle and the main character’s goal, let’s think about the arc of the story. The story has its ups and downs. In the beginning you introduce the character and scene. Everything is on an even keel. Then a series of good and bad things happen that creates the arc of this particular story. In the case of the cat rescued after a disaster, the story would start pre-disaster. The family is happy. The cat is happy. The world is happy. Then the disaster hits. The family is separated from their cat. The family is distraught. Then the family learns that the family cat was saved. Everyone is happy again and cannot wait to see their beloved cat again. But then the family learns that the new adoptive family will not return the family pet. The lawsuit comes next with an intense struggle. And let’s end the story with the cat being returned at the end of the trial. All these ups and downs make up the arc of the story.
Another way storytelling is described is in terms of plays. We have used plays to tell stories for as long as we have had stories to tell. Plays often have three acts.
Act one contains an introduction of the characters. The stage is set for the upcoming conflict. We learn something about the setting and gain insight into the potential conflict that is coming.
Act two is the conflict and the struggle. In the rescued cat story, in act two we learn that the cat’s new owners will not return the cat to his original family. Act two is also everything that happens in the trial.
Act three is the resolution of the conflict. The story is wrapped up. This is what happens after winning the trial. The cat comes home.
Another way to look at storytelling is Freytag’s Triangle. Gustav Freytag was a 19th century German playwright. Freytag explained that plays have five elements or acts to a story. He described the exposition
, which has been renamed, in English-language discussion of the topic, as the introduction.
The rising action
. This is the building of conflict. In the case of the noisy puppy mill next door, the barking of the mother dogs mourning the loss of their puppies might happen only once a month. But then as the puppy mill grows, this barking increases to once a week. The increasing barking is Freytag’s rising action
.
The climax. The third act in Freytag’s Triangle is the climax. This is when everything is at its worst. In the puppy mill next door case, this could be the mother dogs barking constantly.
When things are getting better. Again, in the example of the mother dogs barking, the section, so to speak, might be a nuisance suit brought by your client against the puppy mill.
Catastrophe. Freytag ends with catastrophe. In the modern description of Freytag’s Triangle, the end is called a conclusion
rather than a catastrophe. Maybe major change
is a better way to describe the final act in Freytag’s description of storytelling. In the case of the puppy mill, a conclusion could be the shutting down of the puppy mill as a result of the lawsuit.
Now that we have looked at the broad outlines of three different ways to look at the story line, we need to look at some specific tools to use to tell a good story. Again, these are learned skills. You can learn how to be a good storyteller in the courtroom.
Start your preparation with the arc of the story in mind
Put together the facts of the case using arc of the story principles. This is where you write down what happened
. Lawyers often use a timeline to make sense of the arc of a story. We spend time interviewing our client to create this timeline. This timeline becomes the arc of the story. This timeline determines the acts in our courtroom play.
Use a good pithy opening sentence
You have your timeline – your arc of the story. But you also start with a blank page when it comes to telling the story. Good storytellers often look to start the story with a bang. This makes everyone want to listen to the rest of the story. Spend time on the first line of the story. Novelists can spend months coming up with the opening line to a novel.
A few examples of opening story lines that are considered noteworthy:
I’m pretty much fucked
. Andy Weir, The Martian.
It was raining in Richmond on Friday June 6.
Patricia Cornwell, Post-Mortem
Your father picks you up from prison in a stolen Dodge Neon, with an 8-ball of coke in the glove compartment and a hooker named Mandy in the back seat.
Dennis Lehane, Until Gwen
Don’t throw away this opportunity to get the jury interested in your client’s story!
Tell the story from your client’s perspective
We get confused when we hear stories told from different perspectives. Books that tell stories from multiple perspectives are hard to read. Movies with the stories told through multiple perspectives are hard to follow. You have one story to tell. Tell every story from your client’s perspective.
Have an enemy
Your story needs a hero and an enemy. Your client is the hero. The other party is the enemy. In a trial, one party must lose. It is your job to convince the jury, through your storytelling, that the other party should be the loser, not your client.
Use an active voice
Use an active voice in your storytelling. The letter carrier hit the brown poodle in the face. Not, the brown poodle was hit in the face by the letter carrier. We see the action in our minds more clearly when we hear an active voice.
Edit
Every sentence in your story should have a reason for being in your story. Just because something happened to the parties during the struggle is not enough reason to include those details in the story. The jury wants to hear enough of the story to make a decision. But the jury wants to go home even more. Edit.
Vivid language
Use words that bring pictures to the minds of the listeners. Get out that thesaurus from college. Use it.
Keep these techniques in mind with putting together your opening statement and closing argument.
RD 7.18.18
Back to the start of the chapter two
Back to the table of contents
Class exercise storytelling
Tell the story of these two dogs.
You are telling the story orally to the class.
Take no more than five minutes to tell the story. You can use less time if you wish.
You can write out the story if that is helpful to you.
Find a good opening sentence.
Your story should have a beginning, a middle, and an end.
Good stories have some level of conflict, and some resolution to that conflict.
Good stories have a hero. It can be one of the dogs, the dogs together, some person, or even a group of people.
RD 7.18.18
Chapter Three Objections
Introduction to objections
Objection reference sheet
Objection exercise Anne’s Posse
Objection exercise Noodle the Dog
Introduction to objections
A lawyer must have a legal basis for any objection. A separate issue is whether you should raise the objection. A lawyer wants to minimize objections if possible to avoid appearing disruptive. Common reasons why a lawyer may want to object:
Exclude prejudicial evidence from coming into evidence
Preserve the record for appeal
Protect the witness from seemingly unfair questions
Break up the flow and rhythm of adverse testimony
Reinforce your theme or theory of the case
How to make an objection
The format for making an objection has four components. The first, and the most important, is to state the word objection
. Don't be shy about this. You need to object loud enough that you effectively interrupt the dialogue between the opposing counsel and the witness. Second, address your objection to the Court, not opposing counsel. It may be helpful for you to say your honor
to make it clear your objection is addressed to the Court. Third, state the legal basis for the objection. Fourth, it may or may not be necessary to elaborate briefly on the reasons you think your objection has merit.
Examples:
Admitted. Objection, Your Honor, the parties have already stipulated to this fact.
A stipulation not only saves time but can avoid examinations that might emphasize adverse facts. There may be occasions where a lawyer wants a jury to hear facts to which the opposing party is willing to stipulate. Opposing counsel, for example, may be willing to stipulate to the expertise of your witness which would mean you would not need to spend time asking the witness about their expert qualifications. You may want to reject that stipulation in order that the jury can hear your witness’ expert qualifications.
Ambiguous. Objection, Your Honor, ambiguous. This means it is not clear what is being asked. The lawyer’s concern is that the witness may answer a different question than the one intended or the answer may be misunderstood.
Argumentative. Objection, Your Honor, argumentative. Counsel is arguing with the witness.
Arguing the law. Objection, Your Honor, arguing the law. Counsel is arguing the law to the jury rather than asking the witness a question.
Assumes facts not in evidence. Objection, Your Honor, assumes facts not in evidence. Counsel is basing their question on facts that have not been (or won’t be) introduced in this trial.
Assumes facts in evidence. Objection, Your Honor, fails to assume facts that are in evidence. Counsel’s hypothetical fails to assume facts that are – or will be – in evidence. At this point, ask the Court to allow you to make a record of the facts that the question fails to assume.
Asked and answered. Objection, Your Honor, this question has already been asked answered by this witness.
Badgering the witness. Objection, Your Honor, badgering the witness. Counsel is not allowing the witness to answer questions fully (or is otherwise badgering the witness).
Best evidence rule. Objection, Your Honor, best evidence rule. It would be more appropriate to have the original document introduced into evidence.
Beyond the scope of direct or cross-examination. Objection, Your Honor, beyond the scope of direct (or cross) examination. Questions on cross-examination must be within the scope of the direct examination.
Calls for a conclusion. Objection, Your Honor, Calls for a conclusion. The questions do not ask for a statement of facts but ask for a conclusion.
Completeness. Objection, Your Honor, completeness. Counsel is attempting to introduce only part of the document. We ask the court to admit the entire document at this time.
Compound question. Objection, Your Honor, compound question. Counsel has asked more than one question. It may be difficult to tell which question the witness is answering.
Confusing. Objection, Your Honor, confusing. It is difficult to tell what Counsel is asking. It may also be difficult to tell what question the witness has answered.
Counsel is testifying. Objection, Your Honor, counsel is testifying. Counsel is attempting to testify rather than ask the witness a question.
Form. Objection, Your Honor, form. This is a catch-all objection. Many of the objections listed here are objections to the form of the question in a broad sense. Avoid objecting to the form if you can state a clearer objection. Note that objecting to the form may be the only objection allowed in a deposition.
Foundation. Objection, Your Honor, foundation. We object because it has not been established that (insert the foundation that is lacking).
Hearsay. Objection, Your Honor, Hearsay. This is an out of court statement being offered as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. (The exceptions to the prohibition against hearsay are many and a complete topic in itself.)
Improper impeachment. Objection, Your Honor, improper impeachment. This question is not a permissible form of impeachment.
Incompetent. Objection, Your Honor, incompetent. This witness is not competent to testify based on (insert the incompetence such as age.)
Inflammatory. Objection, Your Honor, inflammatory. This question is likely to cause prejudice.
Irrelevant. Objection, Your Honor, irrelevant. This question is irrelevant to this case.
Lack of personal knowledge. Objection, Your Honor, lack of personal knowledge. The witness does not appear to have personal knowledge of this matter.
Leading. Objection, Your Honor, leading. Counsel is leading the witness and is coaching the witness.
Misstates evidence. Objection, Your Honor, misstates evidence. Counsel has misstated the evidence presented. (This objection will probably be overruled but it reminds the jury of what was said previously.)
Narrative. Objection, Your Honor, calls for a narrative. This question will likely lead to a long narrative answer. I may not be able to timely object to irrelevant or inadmissible testimony.
Improper opinion. Objection, Your Honor, improper opinion. These questions call for an opinion that this witness is not qualified to give.
Pretrial ruling. Objection, Your Honor, the Court’s in limine ruling excluded this evidence.
Privileged communication. Objection, Your Honor, privilege. The question calls for a privileged communication between (Insert the nature of the privilege.)
Public policy. Objection, Your Honor, public policy. Testimony of this nature is prohibited as it is (insert the evidence rule that prohibits admission into evidence of the particular public policy, such as settlement discussions.)
Speculative. Objection, Your Honor, speculative. This question requires the witness to guess rather than testify to facts.
Reference sheet for objections
Common Objections
Admitted
Ambiguous
Argumentative
Arguing the law
Assumes facts not in evidence
Asked and answered
Badgering the witness
Best evidence rule
Beyond the scope of direct or cross-examination
Calls for a conclusion
Completeness
Compound question
Confusing
Counsel is testifying
Form
Foundation
Hearsay
Improper impeachment
Incompetent
Inflammatory
Irrelevant
Lack of personal knowledge
Leading
Misstates evidence
Narrative
Opinion
Pretrial ruling
Privileged communication
Public policy
Speculative
RD 7.25.18
Objection Exercise Annie’s Posse
Annie’s Posse Objection Exercise
Set up: This is a case brought by an animal rights group that supports wild horses and burros living and running free on public lands. The group is named Annie’s Posse
. The group is suing the Bureau of Land Management for not following the Wild and Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971. The case has gone to trial. The witness is Trent Simon, a volunteer for Annie’s Posse. Another volunteer with the group, Caroline Weaver, may also be mentioned. The lawyer is Marissa Lopez, one of the attorneys for the plaintiff, Annie’s Posse.
This is direct examination by the Plaintiff:
1. Plaintiff’s Lawyer Marissa Lopez: Isn't it true that you saw starving horses in the BLM holding pens after the roundup of wild horses from Area Seven?
2. Plaintiff’s Lawyer Marissa Lopez: Did you ever go to the BLM holding pens for wild horses?
3. Plaintiff’s Lawyer Marissa Lopez: When you went to the BLM holding pens, were there over 100 horses there with no water?
4. Plaintiff’s Lawyer Marissa Lopez: What experience do you have with horses?
5. Plaintiff’s Lawyer Marissa Lopez: You testified that on July 7th at 10:00 am you saw around 100 horses in the pen. Then on July 8th at 9:00 am the pen was empty. Do you think the BLM came in under the cover of darkness and removed the horses?
6. Plaintiff’s Lawyer Marissa Lopez: Is it true that in the middle of the night on July 7th, you opened up the pens of the horses and burros to release them?
7. Plaintiff’s Lawyer Marissa Lopez: You mentioned that you were recently married. What does your wife think about the treatments of these wild horses and burros?
8. Plaintiff’s Lawyer Marissa Lopez: As someone advocating for horses, this likely means that you have grown up with them. Is that right?
9. Plaintiff’s Lawyer Marissa Lopez: So it’s true that after a roundup of wild horses from area seven, you later starving horses in BLM holding pens?
10. Plaintiff’s Lawyer Marissa Lopez: What did you do, if anything, when you were told by BLM that Annie’s Posse’s protest outside their headquarters had to stop?
11. Plaintiff’s Lawyer Marissa Lopez: Is it true that during this past year you have taken photos of the pens containing the horses and burros in question?
12. Plaintiff’s Lawyer Marissa Lopez: When you were there, what did you see?
13.Plaintiff’s Lawyer Marissa Lopez: Caroline Weaver is also a volunteer with Annie’s Posse. You testified that she told you she is the person who has been going in the middle of the night to provide food and water to the horses and burros in the pens and that they were filthy.
14. Plaintiff’s Lawyer Marissa Lopez: Did you determine the conditions of the animals in the pens by evaluating each animal individually and by looking at how much food and water was available in each section?
15. Plaintiff’s Lawyer Marissa Lopez: How can you sit here and not get angry about what the BLM has done?
16. Plaintiff’s Lawyer Marissa Lopez: Your favorite color is brown, isn’t it?
17. Plaintiff’s Lawyer Marissa Lopez: What did you see at the pen near Dopey Lake? (no previous questions mentioning Dopey Lake had been asked)
18. Plaintiff’s Lawyer Marissa Lopez: Did you ever go with Caroline to feed and give water to the horses and burros? If you did, then that means you would have been with her the evening of July 7th?
19. Plaintiff’s Lawyer Marissa Lopez: On April 14th, you spent the whole day at the hair salon, didn’t you?
20. Plaintiff’s Lawyer Marissa Lopez: Did Caroline drive you both to Area Seven where the pens were located?
Witness Trent Simon: No, she did not.
Plaintiff’s Lawyer Marissa Lopez: Let me be sure we are understanding this correctly. Caroline didn’t drive you both to the Area Seven pens?
21. Plaintiff’s Lawyer Marissa Lopez: Trent Simon, can you describe your time working in the circus to the court?
22. Plaintiff’s Lawyer Marissa Lopez: When did you spray paint the side of the building?
23. Plaintiff’s Lawyer Marissa Lopez: Tell us what you know about this case.
24. Have you ever received any speeding tickets?
This is the cross-examination by the BLM.
1. BLM’s Lawyer: So you believe you saw Bob cut the chains on some of the pens at Dopey Lake?
2. BLM’s Lawyer: At 12pm on April 2nd, you were adopting a puppy from the Oregon Humane Society, correct?
3. BLM’s Lawyer: Did you think it was okay for you to open the pen and release all the animals and was anyone else with you?
4. BLM’s Lawyer: How can you sit here with that smirk on your face?
5. BLM’s Lawyer: Did you ever renew your car’s registration?
Witness Trent Simon: No.
6. BLM’s Lawyer: So you purposely didn’t renew your car’s registration?
7. Witness Trent Simon: The first thing I did on July 7th was get up, shower, got dressed, and ate a bowl of shredded wheat. That stuff is bland, but it’s good for you. Heart healthy. I guess that was around 9:30 am or so. And then I got in the car and got myself a donut because I hadn’t yet had any sugar due to that boring breakfast…
8. BLM’s Lawyer: And then what?
9. BLM’s Lawyer: What did you see in red barn near the burro pens?
10. BLM’s Lawyer: Your favorite animal is a llama, isn’t it?
11. BLM’s Lawyer: I’ll remind you that you attended at a protest outside the BLM office and noted that you had seen some members of Annie’s Posse with cans of spray paint. There was a fresh mural on the side of the building depicting free horses and burros.
Witness Trent Simon: I believe members of the Posse were responsible for that.
12. BLM’s Lawyer: But you also were holding cans of spray paint that day, weren’t you?
13. BLM’s Lawyer: Do you always look this angry?
14. Witness Trent Simon: Caroline said she saw the ranchers rounding up the horses and burros and putting them in the pens.
15. BLM’s Lawyer: Is it true that you have visited the particular pens in question at Area Seven?
16. BLM’s Lawyer: Are you honestly telling me that you have no response to my question?
17. BLM’s Lawyer: You are being biased!
18. BLM’s Lawyer: You are responsible for breaking the locks off all the pens! You did it!
19. BLM’s Lawyer: When did you see them do that?
20. BLM’s Lawyer: So you got to the protest at 8 am?
21. BLM’s Lawyer: What did Caroline Weaver tell you to do?
22. BLM’s Lawyer: You don’t really care about animals, do you?
23. BLM’s Lawyer: Mr. Simon, were you ever convicted for any crimes such as battery or assault?
24. BLM’s Lawyer: After you arrived at the pens in Area Seven on July 7th at 10 am, were there any other cars there?
Witness Trent Simon: I saw a red car drive by that looked like the make and model of a car a member of Annie’s Posse has driven to meetings.
RD 7.28.18
Objection Exercise Noodle the Dog
Noodle the Dog v. Ronnie Stone
Read the fact summary below of Noodle the Dog v. Ronnie Stone. This is a fascinating case where a neglected dog filed suit in their own name against the hoarder who mistreated and neglected them.
Now picture yourself in the trial of Noodle the Dog versus Ronnie Stone. We'll start with you (the class) taking the role of Lee Hunt, the attorney representing the animal hoarder, Ronnie Stone. Conduct a direct examination to bring out the facts below under the section titled Ronnie Stone Sees the Situation Differently
. Feel free to conduct a horrible direct examination. This allows your classmates to practice making objections. You can ask question that will draw objections for the following reasons:
Ambiguous
Argumentative
Arguing the law
Assumes facts not in evidence
Asked and answered
Badgering the witness
Best evidence rule
Beyond the scope of direct or cross-examination
Calls for a conclusion
Completeness
Compound question
Confusing
Counsel is testifying
Form
Foundation
Hearsay
Improper impeachment
Incompetent
Inflammatory
Irrelevant
Lack of personal knowledge
Leading
Misstates evidence
Narrative
Opinion
Pretrial ruling
Privileged communication
Public policy
Speculative
The class facilitator will ask class for an example of an objectionable question based on lack of knowledge
, for example. Or a question that is leading.
In the second part of the exercise the class will take on the role of Franklin Young. This attorney, who is representing Noodle the Dog, will take their turn and will cross-examine Ronnie Stone. Again, try your best to ask objectionable questions.
General Set-Up of the Case
Noodle the dog lived a horrible life under the control of an animal hoarder named Ronnie Stone. An animal-rights group named Animals’ Right to Speak
has filed a civil action in the name of Noodle against Ronnie Stone. The case alleges Ronnie Stone failed to provide Noodle with proper food, water, and medical attention. The case is not the first of its kind, but it is one of the first to be allowed to proceed to trial. The case has survived multiple motions for summary judgment filed by Ronnie Stone.
Because of the unusual nature of the lawsuit, the suit has gained national attention.
There are two attorneys involved. Franklin Young is the attorney representing Noodle. Lee Hunt represents Ronnie Stone.
Through discovery and investigation, Noodles attorney, Franklin Young, believes the following is true:
Ronnie Stone had between 50 and 60 dogs living on the stone property.
The Stone property consisted of a half-acre, it is located on the edge of town, and the property is at the end of a dirt road that is surrounded by undeveloped land.
Ronnie Stone is a nurse. She works as a home healthcare nurse. Ronnie Stone makes approximately $30 an hour for her home health nursing services.
It appears that Ms. Stone acquired some of the dogs from the patients she sees. There are rumors that if a patient can't afford to take care of their pet, Ronnie Stone tells them that she is running a sanctuary for dogs and would be glad to take the dog and provide them with a wonderful life at the sanctuary.
Animal Control seized all the dogs on Ronnie Stone's property. The animal control officers reported that many, but not all, the dogs were malnourished. Many of the dogs had mange. They found for mummified dead dog bodies on the property. There were dog feces everywhere. The entire property had a foul odor from the feces and dog urine.
Ronnie Stone lives in an old farmhouse built in the 1930s. All surfaces inside the house were covered with dog fur, urine, and feces.
It appears that Ronnie Stone would take a bag of dog food, put it on the porch, and cut it open with a knife. The dogs would rush in and eat from the bag. The stronger, more aggressive dogs ate well. The weaker, more timid dogs did not get enough to eat.
The dogs water bowl consisted of a plastic children’s pool. Ronnie Stone filled it when it was getting low. There was a green slime on the edges of the pool.
Dogs were occasionally taken to the vet. Usually for some nasty infection or wound from being attacked by other dogs on the property.
No one watches the dogs when Ronnie Stone is at work.
The dogs are noisy, but no one is around to hear the barking.
A lone turtle lives on the grounds. The turtle is named Gertrude and is often harassed by the dogs.
Ronnie Stone sees the situation differently. She has told animal control the following:
Ronnie Stone thinks she has been unfairly targeted by Animal Control. Ronnie says she believes in no-kill shelters and that Animal Control generally likes to kill animals. Ronnie has made the statement that this difference in philosophy caused Animal Control to harass her.
Stone feeds the dogs before even buying human food to feed herself.
Stone takes good care of the dogs. Around 15 of the dogs live with her in hour house. Four dogs sleep with her every night.
Stone makes sure the dogs have ample water. She checks the water daily.
If she is going out of town for some reason, Stone has a volunteer come by and feed and give water to the dogs.
Stone takes any dog that needs veterinary care to the vet. She has the medical bills to prove that she goes to the vet regularly.
Stone does not believe in vaccinating dogs. She claims that dogs are better off living a natural lifestyle
.
Stone is proud that she has saved so many dogs. She believes if these dogs had gone to a shelter, they would have been killed. And because of her commitment and dedication to these dogs they are not only alive, but living a healthy, natural lifestyle.
Stone does not allow visitors on the property. She says the people who disagree with the no- kill shelter movement take
Sie haben das Ende dieser Vorschau erreicht. Registrieren, um mehr zu lesen!
Seite 1 von 1
Rezensionen
Rezensionen
Was die Leute über Trial Advocacy in Animal Law denken
0Bewertung: 0 von 5 Sternen
0 Bewertungen / 0 rezensionen
Was dachten Sie?
Bewertung: von 5 Sternen