#but they STILL have to get proof because thoughts are not admissible evidence in court

[plant-dad-sulu]

star trek show that's an anthology series in which every episode is a different recognizable genre but in the context of a canon star trek culture like High School Drama on Vulcan, Police Procedural on Betazed, Breaking Bad on Ferenginar,

[misandry-is-justified]

Proof Johnny Depp Lied

Johnny Depp lied in the trial and its proven both in the court recordings and in the transcripts.

Early on in the trial, Ambers lawyer asks if Johnny Depp sent the following text messages:

«Right. Exactly. Molly's pussy is rightfully mine. Should I not just bust in and remove its hinges tonight?»

«"I want to change her understanding of what it is like to be thrashed about like a pleading Mackrel.»

«I NEED. I WANT. I TAKE.»

He denies it, claiming that he never said these words, and when presented with the evidence, that he did not send those messages (even though they were sent from his device). Claims of impersonation are, at the best of times, convenient but during the same examination he proves himself a liar when another text message is presented, written in the same style and he admits to writing it.

He does not dispute writing the following text, admitting with a clear «i most certainly did» when asked if he sent it:

«She's begging for total global humiliation. She's going to get it. I'm gonna need your texts about San Francisco, brother. I'm even sorry to ask. But, she sucked Mollusk's crooked dick and he gave her some shitty lawyers. I have no mercy, no fear, and not an ounce of emotion, or what I once thought was love for this gold digging, low level, dime a dozen, mushy, pointless dangling overused flappy fish market.

I'm so fucking happy she wants to go to fight this out. She will hit the wall hard. And I cannot wait to have this waste of a cum guzzler out of my life. I met a fucking sublime little Russian here, which made me realize the time I blew on that 50 cent stripper. I wouldn't touch her with a goddamn glove. I can only hope that karma kicks in and takes the gift of breath from her. Sorry, man. But, now, I will stop at nothing. Let's see if Mollusk has a pair. Come see me face to face. I'll show him things he's never seen before. Like the other side of his dick when I slice it off.»»

The idea that he did not write the first text message is proven by the admission of writing the second. The writing style is the same. The idea that he did not write the first was laughable to begin with, but for this bogeyman impersonator to replicate his texting style with such accuracy? If these two instances alone do not prove it you can keyword search «text» in the transcripts and see for yourselves what i mean, for this messaging style is quite consistent with all of the others he admits to sending throughout the trial. This proves his guilt and this was the moment i knew he is a liar.

If he lied about this, so minor a message (because lets be honest nobody cares if you say demeaning things about women) for the sake of his reputation, what else was he lying about during this trial? He so obviously lied about so much more but the charisma of the more experienced actor won in the end.

Transcript sections and a link to the whole transcript and recording are provided below. The sections i copied are from pages 67-75. The date of this part of the trial was 25th May 2022 (Trial day 22 according to the video but 23 according to the transcript.)

Mr. Rottenborn: Mr. Depp, these are text messages from you to Stephen Deuters on February 22nd, 2017, correct? Mr. Depp: No. This looks nothing like me. You might have mistaken... Mr. Rottenborn: Mr. Depp, we can show the full unredacted...you've looked at a number of text messages in this case, and the words "Him" as the identifier, that's you, correct, in every text message we've seen in this case? Mr. Depp: Yeah. Sure. It still doesn't mean it hasn't been screwed with. That's not anything that I've ever said or written. Mr. Rottenborn: You want to see the whole thing unredacted? We can look at that, too. Mr. Depp: No. It's because you could have typed it up last night. No. Mr. Rottenborn: I can assure you I didn't type it up last night, Mr. Depp. Your Honor, I move for the admission of Exhibit 883.

-gap-

Mr. Rottenborn: Thank you. Mr. Depp, you're aware these are text messages...you can see the bottom right where it says "Depp" and then it has a number, 8129? Those are produced by you in this litigation. You understand that, right? Mr. Depp: I understand that. Mr. Rottenborn: All right. Michelle, could you please...let's take a look at the top text first. Mr. Depp, on February 22nd, 2017, you texted Mr. Deuters, "Right. Exactly. Molly's pussy is rightfully mine. Should I not just bust in and remove its hinges tonight?" Did I read that right? Mr. Depp: You read it right. Mr. Rottenborn: And the one beneath that, you say, "I want to change her understanding of what it is like to be thrashed about like a pleading Mackrel." And then in all caps, you write, "I NEED. I WANT. I TAKE." That right?

Mr. Depp: You read it right, but I did not write that. Mr. Rottenborn: Okay. Mr. Depp: Perhaps someone [inaudible 02:41:52] phone. Mr. Rottenborn: You wrote every other text that you produced, that came from you in this litigation, didn't you? Mr. Depp: Not necessarily. Sometimes you give your phone to people and they...

-gap-

Mr. Rottenborn: My apologies, Your Honor. Mr. Depp, you sent this text

to Christian Carino on August 15th?

Mr. Depp: I most certainly did.

-gap-

Mr. Rottenborn: Thank you, Your Honor. And in this text, Mr. Depp, you said, "She's begging for total global humiliation. She's going to get it. I'm gonna need your texts about San Francisco, brother. I'm even sorry to ask. But, she sucked Mollusk's crooked dick and he gave her some shitty lawyers. I have no mercy, no fear, and not an ounce of emotion, or what I once thought was love for this gold digging, low level, dime a dozen, mushy, pointless dangling overused flappy fish market.

I'm so fucking happy she wants to go to fight this out. She will hit the wall hard. And I cannot wait to have this waste of a cum guzzler out of my life. I met a fucking sublime little Russian here, which made me realize the time I blew on that 50 cent stripper. I wouldn't touch her with a goddamn glove. I can only hope that karma kicks in and takes the gift of breath from her. Sorry, man. But, now, I will stop at nothing. Let's see if Mollusk has a pair. Come see me face to face. I'll show him things he's never seen before. Like the other side of his dick when I slice it off." Did I read that right? Mr. Depp: You did.

[stxleslyds]

What do you think about the theories that Jason was sexually abused as a child? Or even possibly while he was comatose after his resurrection?

Implications of this theory include his conversation with Mia (Speedy) and Bruce's message (Battle for the Cowl). In addition, when he was Robin he expressed what was then considered uncharacteristic rage towards the perpetrators of sex crimes.

Garzonas - unrepentant rapist who got no consequences

When a woman killed her sister's rapist and murderer (because Batman's evidence was not admissible in court), Batman said that she went too far with murder. Jason's disagreed with "Good riddance". Good for you, Jason.

His recklessness when dealing with a child sex trafficking ring.

I highly doubt that DC would ever confirm this theory. I would rather they leave it ambiguous because I don't trust them to not botch Jason... much less respectfully address the subject matter.

I have read so many thoughts on Jason that they're starting to blend together. So I apologize if you've already answered this before.

Hello friend! Aside from the fact that I took way too much time to answer your ask, this was also a hard question to come up with an answer to, I wanted to remain respectful of the subjects at hand even though I don’t second this headcanon. But before we keep going, let me put some trigger warnings in this post.

trigger warning: mentions of sexual abuse, child abuse, rape.

First, I would like to bring up these two concepts because I oftentimes mix them up when talking about these “ideas”.

Theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something; an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.

Headcanon: Headcanon generally refers to ideas held by fans of series that are not explicitly supported by sanctioned text or other media. Fans maintain the ideas in their heads, outside of the accepted canon.

I think the idea of Jason having been sexually abused at any point in his lifetime is a mix between a theory and a headcanon. Why I am saying this? Because as you have put in the ask, there has been instances where fandom has found pieces of information that they have considered the base of this idea.

So, if we say that there is a piece of text that might support that idea and they build from that to justify a course of action we would be looking at a theory. In this case Jason having been abused would the reason as to why he acts in that strong and violent way towards cases of sexual abuse/harassment.

In the other hand those pieces of text might not support that idea so fandom headcanons that idea in order to build another layer to a character, in this case Jason having been abused would also justify his actions towards certain criminals.

The “text” (panels, issues, mentions) are most of the time ambiguous, which makes readers have different perspectives in what is being written and what then is made into a theory or headcanon.

Personally, I don’t like this theory or headcanon for various reasons (which I will explain later in the post), and I have read and understood those moments mentioned as Jason just having survived Crime Alley as something general, I don’t think he suffered that kind of abuse but I think he was made aware of that type of behaviour every day that he spent alone in the streets and that why we saw Jason in Batman #408 saying that he had “graduated a long time ago from the streets of crime alley”.

Having said that, I do understand that some of the moments mentioned can be seen as ambiguous and that’s what leads people to theorize/headcanon that idea, because of that I would like to show the panels mentioned in your ask so everyone can read them and make up their own conclusions and then I will talk about the reasons why I don’t like this particular theory/headcanon.

As Robin:

Batman (1940) #422

In these panels we can see Jason as Robin jumping in to defend a woman that was being attacked by a man. There I only see Jason acting like a vigilante would, maybe he was hitting too hard or whatever but Batman has hit people as much as Jason was doing it this time around, plus I, personally, don’t see any kind of problem with Jason beating a man that was harassing and threatening a woman with death.

Right beside we have Jason being on the side of the woman that killed her sister’s attacker. He didn’t see any problem with that woman seeking justice for her sister on her own when the police, Batman and himself couldn’t get the job done.

Here I see Jason having a big problem with authorities and justice system, which is not something new, in Batman #408, Jason says very clearly that he doesn’t trust the system in Gotham (the police, social workers and such), and he was also shown in that comic talking very fondly about his mother and about how much he cared for her when she was at her worst. Let’s remember that Jason loved his mother, he took care of her and resented his father for being abusive towards her and even introducing her to drugs.

Instead understanding these panels as Jason having been abused himself, I see it more as Jason having a humongous understanding of how much women and others suffer in Gotham due to the justice system’s lack of action. I also see Jason as the kind of boy that respected all women and could not sit and do nothing when people were hitting and abusing women just like his father did to his mother.

Batman (1940) #424

This issue starts by saying that Jason jumps into action as soon as he hears someone scream but that he wasn’t going to be prepared to see what was happening. This is the issue where all of us meet Felipe Garzonas, the abuser and rapist of many women. At first Jason doesn’t know what Felipe was doing but after he and Batman “defeat” Felipe, he goes to the room where he finds Gloria in a bed badly hurt and scared. Jason is shocked when he first finds her and after hearing her story in the police station, he becomes more and more happy about the fact that by having caught Felipe, he and Batman would be able to offer some peace and justice to Gloria after he goes to jail, but that doesn’t happen.

They had all the evidence to put Felipe in jail and the police could easily see that Gloria was the victim but because Felipe had someone to back his made-up story up, he was able to not be arrested and jailed.

Jason once again is baffled at the lack of action by the police or simply justice not being able to be made in favour of the true victim. Batman even says that he has noticed that Jason “had become to emotionally invested with the case” which could favour either idea (Jason having suffered sexual abuse or not), in my case I see this once again as Jason not being able to remain calm after doing everything to keep that woman safe and the justice system not being able to do it themselves in a more permanent way (jail time, or whatever).

But that’s not all because Jason being too emotional with that case was brought up as a way to show that Jason couldn’t see that Felipe had been under the influence of drugs, which is something that Jason can see in people very well (do to experience with his mother and his training with Batman). So, Felipe is now a rapist, an abuser, he does drugs and he also has a market for it.

Because Felipe was allowed to go back to his “normal” life he had Gloria be killed, and he kept abusing drugs and women, when Jason finds Gloria’s dead body and that Batman still seems to abide the justice system he snaps. He goes alone to see Felipe and that’s were this iconic panel comes from. The moments before Jason made his first kill and felt no remorse about it. I know this is kinda soft topic because Jason was a teenager, but good for him, kill that bitch. Gotham doesn’t need more people like him.

Batman (1940) #226

This is the issue where Jason attacks the men that were involved with some very nasty stuff involving children. Batman narrates and says that him and Jason had been working on this case for three weeks. Jason jumps into action suddenly and “recklessly” even though Batman considered their investigation wasn’t over, he also says that he thinks that Jason had been “acting oddly” and that he was very “moody, resentful and reckless” and that that attitude could “get him killed”.

This could be used as to add more proof of the abuse idea but I actually see it as build up to Jason’s death, that happened two issues later. Let’s remember that Jason found out of his birth mother and was desperate to find and save her from Joker, because he was a good son but also because he didn’t feel like Bruce loved, cared or appreciated him anymore. Ever since Jason made it clear that he didn’t see the world and justice in the same way that Batman did back in issue #422, Jason and Bruce’s relationship suffered, they just couldn’t see eye to eye on some subjects and Bruce’s neglect or lack of care for what Jason believed in drove Jason to act the way he did in the case involving his mother and the Joker.

Jason obviously has major issues with kids being abused and put in dangerous situations, he as the Red Hood (Winick’s Red Hood) is the same, he really wants kids to be taken far away from drugs so they cannot be manipulated, used and abused by Gotham’s Drug Lords. Here I can see some of the same thing, Jason being protective of those kids and getting fed up with how much time he and Batman had to wait to do anything about the subject, along side it I bet Jason wasn’t seeing the police or the justice system doing anything about the whole thing so that could have probably fuelled his desperate attack of those horrible people.

As Batman/Red Hood:

Batman: Battle for the Cowl #3

Battle for the Cowl… yeah I am going to be brutally honest about this, if anyone thinks that this is someway or somehow proof that Jason had been abused in the past then I think we have very different ways of thinking how survivors must be treated or written in comics and other media.

This to me is pure bad writing, this is some of the worst things I have seen being written in comics. Whether or not this implies Jason being abused or not, Bruce’s message is absolutely disgusting and not at all helpful, it is even worse when you realise that Dick, a canon sexual assault survivor, is the one playing the message to Jason even though Jason explicitly said that he didn’t want to hear it again. That Book, issue, page and panel are extremely badly written and is one of the most terrible Jason and Dick characterizations ever.

So, I don’t really care if this panel is supposed to offer support to that theory or headcanon, I really dislike that speech and if it is actually referencing Jason as being a survivor of child abuse, then Tony S. Daniel needs to make an apology from today to the day he dies.

“Of all my failures, you have been my biggest” “You were broken and I thought I could put the pieces back together. I thought I could do for you what could never be done for me. Make you whole” “What happened to you as a child… the terror, the pain, the horrors” “You needed repair and instead I gave you an outlet to act out on”

Absolute garbage writing. Me, as Bruce is number one hater, know that that speech is even out of character for Bruce. Listen, if Jason had been a victim of sexual assault or just being a kid living alone in Crime Alley, no one should leave a message like that, telling a victim that they were broken and needed fixing, what the hell? No, thank you, this issue proves nothing except that Battle for the Cowl was a mistake as a whole.

Green Arrow (2001) #72

Judd Winick is clever I will always say that, and while I do see why people think that Jason is making the “child abuse idea” canon I still think that the way that he talks is still fairly ambiguous if not just him playing mind games with Mia.

I know it sounds wrong, but hear me out, Winick, in this arc makes Batman say that Jason distracted him and Oliver just to take Mia as a “hostage” because that was Jason’s way to mess with him. This arc happens right after UtRH and Jason is a bit more unhinged than ever. But he doesn’t harm Mia, he just talks to her, he tries to make her see why he acts the way he does and to do that he talks about how much he sees of himself in her. Do I believe that Jason suffered the same things Mia did? No. Do I think that their past is similar? Yes.

But Jason doesn’t only use the fact that they have similar pasts to make Mia rebel against her “no killing ways” and Oliver like he did with Bruce, but he also brings up the fact that their past is incredibly different to the lives of Bruce and Oliver, and that those differences are of importance.

Maybe it’s just me, but I didn’t see Jason bringing Mia’s past for anything other than manipulating her and kinda make her see Oliver in a negative light the way that he does Batman and Bruce. Jason was at a point in his life where all he wanted to do was deliver the same pain that he had gone through but he didn’t do it by physically harming anyone (Mia was left unscratched), he was just out there trying to play mind games so he could break more havoc in Batman’s name.

Mia’s past is just way too different to whatever we have seen in canon from Jason’s past. Maybe I am wrong, after all, I only read about Mia in that arc.

-

With all that having been said I think it’s pretty obvious that I just don’t think that Jason’ having been sexually abused as a child actually happened, and I also don’t like to think about his past in that way. His canon suffering could have made him act that violently against criminals involved with sexual attacks and drug-related crimes, but I also think that’s just how Jason was, he really disliked the justice system in Gotham and saw how much it failed to protect victims, so now that he had the training to help those who couldn’t do it for themselves, he tried his best to bring criminals to justice.

And when that didn’t work, he grew more and more frustrated with Batman’s methods which led him to be more unforgiving and violent.

I also don’t like the theory/headcanon as a whole because I think its one of those things that Fandom comes up with just for that extra angst factor in their favourite character’s story so they can make him suffer more and because of that no other Robin or character as a whole can ever understand his pain or whatever. In this fandom there is a lot of “competitive trauma” going on and I honestly dislike it a lot.

About Jason having been assaulted while he was in a coma, I don't really know, he was at a hospital for what I believe were six moths, maybe that idea comes from real life happenings but I have never thought of that happening in Jason's life and I would rather not give it much more thought.

Also, I believe that DC just like fandom would have never been able to handle the subject of Jason having been a sexual assault survivor with the respect and care that it actually needs. We have seen DC treat sexual harassment and abuse as nothing but a side plot or bringing it up in an extremely disturbing way. In Fandom some (very few) people end up glamorising or romanticising these subjects so, I don’t believe the comic world was or is ready to treat a backstory like this with the respect it needs.

Maybe I haven’t even treated the subject with the respect and care that it needs and if that’s the case then I am truly sorry.

I had never answered a question regarding this subject before and I really appreciate all the questions you send my way; they do make my brain happy. I am really sorry it took me this long to write an answer to you but I hope the post is good enough for all the time I made you wait!

I hope you have an amazing week!

[dirtyoatmeall]

The ways I love you (Matsukawa x reader)

A/N: I love Mattsun so much. I think out of all the characters, he’s the one I’d most likely end up actually dating, not to mention time-skip mattsun is a whole nother conversation. anyway I hope you enjoy, I just really love him.

Pairing: Matsukawa x Reader (gn pronouns but references to reader being able to be pregnant)

Word Count: 2.8k

Warnings: Mentions of 18+ activity as a joke, spoilers for s2 (spring preliminaries), me not proof reading, me not knowing how to describe coming down from your tiptoes

--

Matsukawa liked to think he was observant both on and off the volleyball court. But as he watches you laugh from afar, head thrown back, holding onto your friends shoulder for balance, he can’t help but think, how did he not notice you before? It was enough to stop him in his tracks, unconsciously tuning out the sounds around him, blatantly staring at you as you continue to talk to your friends, a wide grin on your face as you gesture wildly, pausing every so often to laugh at the story you were telling. It took Hanamaki walking in front of him, blocking his view of you, for him to come back to his senses. He heard Hanamaki calling his name, waving a hand in front of his face.

“Hey earth to Mattsun, you okay bro?” He nodded in response, still thinking about your laugh, he wanted to know what you were talking about. He wanted to know your name. Hanamaki turns to look at where Matsukawa was focused so intently on before, grin breaking out when he saw your group. “Ahh, so that’s what’s got your attention? And which one was so lucky to literally stop you in your tracks?” He rolled his eyes in response to Hanamaki’s teasing, when Iwaizumi appeared next to him, raising an eyebrow at Matsukawa. “What’re you talking about?” Hanamaki is happy to fill the spiker in, and Matsukawa returns his gaze to your group again, before furrowing his eyebrows.

He watched Oikawa saunter up to your group, he must have called your name since you turned to face him, eyebrow raised. The setter says something that causes you to roll your eyes, hands on your hips and you respond, teasing smile evident. In true Oikawa fashion, he responds by pouting dramatically before scanning the courtyard, face lighting up when he spots his group of friends. He grabs your wrist, you wave to your friends before following and Matsukawa’s eyes widen when he realizes Oikawa is bringing you over to them. Did Oikawa see him staring? Were you somehow dating the setter? Matsukawa wracks his brain for any memories on a new fling when you two finally reach the group.

“Iwa-chan! (Y/N)-chan still won’t agree to being the manager! Won’t you convince them?” Oikawa says dramatically, letting go of your wrist in favor of attempting to lean on Iwaizumi, who promptly shoves him off, rolling his eyes. “And why would I do that? I don’t want to subject them to dealing with you anymore than they have to already.” You laugh at Iwaizumi’s insult as Oikawa cries out in offense. (Y/N), Matsukawa repeats your name in his head, wanting to commit it to memory. Though all thoughts immediately halt at the sound of your voice.

“I never said I wouldn’t, I just asked how you were gonna make it worth my while?” Your voice had a teasing lilt to it as you raised your eyebrows in anticipation of the setters response. Iwaizumi rolls his eyes again, grumbling about you egging him on. Oikawa brightens up, a flirty smile adorned as he leans closer to you, eyebrows wiggling up and down. “I know exactly what can make it worth your while.” You throw your head back, loud cackles of laughter filling the air, Hanamaki and Matsukawa chuckle as Oikawa pouts, crossing his arms childishly. After a few moments your laughter dies down, you make a show of wiping tears from your eyes before smiling. “Alright, just because I’ll get to more chances to make fun of you, I’ll do it.” Oikawa seems to ponder being excited or offended by your agreement, choosing the former and hugging you while Iwaizumi pinches the bridge of his nose in exasperation. Thankfully Hanamaki says what was on both of their minds.

“Soo, are you guys like dating or something?” He tries to be casual, eyebrow raised when Iwaizumi snorts, “I can tell you there is no chance of that happening, ever.” Oikawa sputters as you nod, nose scrunched in disgust.

“Let me put it this way,” you pause, thinking before your lips raise into a sly grin. “I would rather be spit roasted by the coaches of Shiratorizawa and Nekoma before I’d hold hands with Tooru romantically.”

Oikawa jaw drops as the rest of them crack up at your words. “(Y/N)-chan! You have to be spending too much time with Iwa, you didn’t used to be this mean!” You roll your eyes playfully before turning to the duo to clarify.

“In all seriousness, I used to live in the same neighborhood as Tooru and Iwa when we were kids, we went to school together up until middle school, when I moved to Fukushima, but I’m back now! And I gotta make up for all the time I missed preventing him from getting a big head, obviously Iwa hasn’t been doing his job.” Said ace narrows his eyes at you, grumbling before Oikawa cuts him off. “It was horrible not having you here (Y/N)-chan! We’re never going to let you leave again!” You smile softly at his admission, and Matsukawa wonders if he’s sick, why else would he be sweating in the middle of November?

--

Months later Matsukawa realizes that he wasn’t sick on that chilly November day in his first year, he was, much like now, infatuated with you. While he wasn’t sure exactly what his feelings for you were, he knew he had it bad. Ever since he noticed you, he started seeing you everywhere. In the hallway, when he was glancing out the window during class, anywhere he was, his eyes always found their way to your form. It didn’t help that Oikawa stuck to his promise, and you became an integral part of their group. He was seeing you at all times of day, even when he closed his eyes at night, images of you, laughing and smiling softly, danced behind his eyelids.

And of course, it did not go unnoticed. Hanamaki was, unsurprisingly, the first to find out. Now whenever he caught Matsukawa staring at you, he’d grin amusedly at the middle blocker, wiggling his eyebrows. Iwaizumi was even seeming to catch on, a knowing look on his face, small grin present whenever Matsukawa would flush slightly after contact with you, whether it was a seemingly innocent hug between friends, or you hanging off his arm dramatically while teasing Oikawa. Speaking of the setter, he was, without a doubt, the last person Matsukawa wanted to find out about his, whatever they are, feelings for you.  But he hid it well, only a few moments of weakness compared to all the other times he kept it together around you, however hard it was.

--

It was in his third year that Matsukawa was able to name his feelings for you, love. Love in the way his heart skips a beat whenever you laugh, in the way his hand twitches to lace his fingers through yours, in the way he can’t imagine not seeing you every day, in the way he fantasizes about a life with you; seeing you first thing in the morning, slow dancing in the kitchen to a song no one can hear but you two. He no longer hid it well, openly gazing at you with a fondness anyone could see was only for you. It seemed the whole world knew of his feelings, except you.

Oikawa found out about 6 months after you returned, the setter vowing to keep it a secret, saying something about letting fate bring the two of you together. Matsukawa no longer tried to hide it, though he wasn’t going to confess anytime soon, he wasn’t above shameless flirting, lingering touches pairing with his love-stricken gaze. Either you were the most oblivious person ever, or you knew but elected to stay silent. He wasn’t sure which he preferred.

It all came to a head the day they lost their chance at nationals.

The loss to Karasuno was hard on everyone, the third years especially. After Coach Irihata talked to the players, you step forward, getting their attention. Unshed tears shining in your eyes you smile sadly at the team. “I’m not a coach, and obviously not a player, so I know my words don’t hold as much value as they would if I was. But I don’t care. I am so proud of all of you. You worked so hard to get here, and even though the outcome wasn’t what we hoped for, I don’t want anyone blaming themselves, not a single one of you. You gave it your all, and I want you to be proud of that. I’m obviously not planning on being a motivational speaker after we graduate, but you get the idea.” A few of the players chucked, and more of them looked tearful than when you started.

For a moment you worry your words did more harm than good, until Iwaizumi steps forward, enveloping you in a hug. You let out a strangled cry/laugh when Oikawa follows his lead, the other third years joining and eventually the whole team, and you smile despite the tears running hotly down your cheeks. Over the 3 years you’ve been manager you have come to love and be loved by the team. As the group hug disperses to pack up for the bus ride home, you and the other third years linger, sharing bittersweet smiles.

The bus ride home is silent. The loss having drained the energy from the team, as many of the players are sleeping. You sit next to Matsukawa, head resting on his shoulder. As you start to drift off you slip your hand into his, sighing contentedly before succumbing to sleep. He looks down at your sleeping form, squeezing your hand as he smiles sadly. The day before he had briefly entertained the idea of confessing if they win nationals, but now, especially after your speech, he knows he can’t wait.

He gently shakes you awake when the bus arrives at the school, his heart stutters when you blearily look up at him, a tired smile gracing your features. He doesn’t let go of your hand when the two of you disembark, the first years telling you to go home when you try to help put stuff away. You tear up again, in appreciation for your underclassmen, looking up when Matsukawa squeezes your conjoined hands. He smiles and tugs you along, waving goodbye to the team before the two of you join Hanamaki and walk to the train station.

The train ride is peaceful, Hanamaki and Matsukawa talking quietly while you resume your place next to the latter, leaning into his side. You wave when Hanamaki gets off, and you sit in comfortable silence until your stop comes up. You look at Matsukawa, confused, when he gets off the train with you, He tugs you forward. “C’mon, I’ll walk you home.” You try to ignore the butterflies in your gut and the heat in your face as you nod.

A few blocks from your house he stops under a streetlight, gently pulling you in front of him. Your eyebrows furrow as you search his face for any tell for his actions. You don’t know what to make of what you find instead, blush deepening when he takes a step closer and cups your cheek with the hand not occupied with your own. “(Y/N),” He sighs, and you think it sounds the prettiest when it comes from his lips. “Originally I wasn’t planning on ever telling you, and I thought about doing it at nationals,” He pauses, and you nuzzle into his hand, shifting your other hand to intertwine with his, a quick squeeze urges him to continue. “but since that’s not going to happen, now seems as good a time as any.” He takes a deep breath, taking another step forward, now toe to toe with you.

“I’m in love with you, have been for who knows how long. Well, I guess I do.” He huffed a laugh, “Probably since first year honestly. I remember the first time I saw you, I literally stopped in my tracks you were so beautiful. God, I sound so lame.” You laugh with him this time, tightening your grip on his hand. He clears his throat before continuing. “I know we haven’t really discussed our plans after graduation, but I wanted you to know, just in case there was some possibility. And when I say I love you, I mean it. I love you in the wake up next to you every morning and make you breakfast kinda way. The buy a cat together kinda way. And I understand if you don’t feel the same, I don’t want you to feel pressured, I just couldn’t not tell you, ya know? I think it would eat at me for the rest of my life if I didn’t.” He wasn’t looking at you anymore, choosing to look at your joined hands instead. Your free hand comes up to cover the one on your cheek, and he looks up to meet your gaze.

He wasn’t expecting the shine of unshed tears or the tender look on your face. You smile, and his heart does the little back flip it does whenever you direct one at him, but there’s something different about this smile, it holds unspoken promises behind it, ones he wants so desperately to hear come tumbling from your lips. “Issei,” You breath, and he shudders slightly hearing you say his name with so much emotion. “I love you too. I love you in the wake up next to you every morning smiling even though you have the worst morning breath,” He snorts and your smile grows as you continue, “I love you in the adopting two cats together kinda way, because we didn’t want it to be lonely when we’re away. I have loved you since the day you told Tooru you were my baby daddy,” You laughed brightly as you recall the memory, the horror on Oikawa’s face when Matsukawa went along with the prank.

“You fell into the role so effortlessly, and yet I never regretted a prank more, because after feeling you pull me against your chest, wrapping an arm around my waist for the day, I was hooked. Constantly thinking of ways I could touch you again.” Your face was a deeper shade of pink, bordering on red, and Matsukawa smiled as he recalled the memory, and how you were more touchy afterwards.

You turn your head, softly kissing the palm of his hand, eyelashes tickling his fingers. Your hand moves to lightly grasp his wrist when his hand moves to your neck, resting on the side for a moment before cupping the back of your head as he leaned down slowly, committing the sight of you; eyes fluttered closed, lips slightly parted, to memory. Impatient, you push yourself upward on your toes, closing the small space between you as your lips finally meet.

You untangle your hand from his, moving to bring both upwards, over his chest and around his neck as you tilt your head slightly, deepening the kiss. His hand tangles into your hair and his other hand moves to settle on the small of your back, bringing you closer as your lips move against each other slowly, pouring years of love and pining into the kiss, savoring the feel of the other. After what feels like forever, you part, panting slightly, out of breath. You rest your weight back on the balls of your feet, smiling as Matsukawa follows you, bending down to rest his forehead against yours. You close your eyes for a moment, processing what just happened, and what it means for the future.

You open your eyes as he kisses you again, this time shorter, but no less sweet. You have a dopey smile on your face when he pulls away, standing to his full height. He untangles his hand from your hair, running his fingers through it for good measure and takes your hand, which had fallen back to your sides, before nodding in the direction of your house. “C’mon, I said I’d walk you home, and we’ll be here all night if we have it your way.” He teases at the pout on your features when he pulls you along the street. 

You turn to him once you reach your steps, hesitant to leave. His hand cups your cheek again, directing your attention back to his face. “Hey, what’s wrong? You look like I’m gonna disappear if you leave.” You bite your lip slightly instead of answering, though he can see it in your eyes. He smiles softly and pulls you into a hug. “I’ll see you tomorrow, I promise. I’m not going to miss out on a chance to rub it in Makki’s face that I got a girlfriend before him.” You laugh lightly into his chest, heart swelling at the word. You breath in the scent of his cologne, squeezing your interlaced hands before stepping back,

“Okay, tomorrow. I’ll see you tomorrow.” He grins at the obvious reluctance present on your features. He lands a quick peck on your cheek, ruffling your hair. He waits until you close the door behind you before leaving. He checks his phone as he walks, cursing as he realizes he only has a few minutes until the last train of the night departs.

[xlady-saya]

I want this touch to be familiar [Ch 5. final]

Relationships: andrew/neil, side aaron/katelyn

Summary: Deep down, Andrew knew he would always reach this crossroads, a time where the thought became too strong to ignore.

Going all the way with Neil. It’s not something he can continue to avoid thinking about. When Andrew looks back to the days where he held Neil’s hands down, when he never got off with him in the same room, he’s forced to acknowledge how much he’s allowed.

Not allowed. Welcomed. Wanted.

But that’s not all there is to it, and the desire to make a decision finally makes itself known.

Tags: first time fic, p*rn with feelings, relationship study, fluff and communication, multichapter

Read on ao3!

Neil misses another pass. It's the fifth time, a new and pathetic record for the stubborn striker. It's so unlike him, but Andrew's blood runs hot from something that's not anger...not worry.

Neil would normally be beside himself, huffing and fuming from the endless mistakes he's making, even at a practice. He's not though.

Andrew watches as the ball rebounds off the plexiglass and rolls along the court, no one making a move to stop it. Not even Kevin, though Andrew will blame that on the steam coming out of his ears. He hasn't snapped yet.

This time when Neil misses, there's a noticeable tension. Dan and Matt shoot each other concerned looks while the others glance at Neil in ways they think are subtle.

They're not, but Neil is oblivious. Andrew's gaze lingers on the flushed skin of his cheeks, the little jump in every step he takes. Troublesome.

The team continues to stare, searching for proof of panic or fear from Neil, maybe rifling through the dates of the week for any bad anniversaries or triggering memories. But they will find none, Andrew knows. And even so...

Neil is smiling like an absolute idiot.

Andrew's stomach swoops involuntarily, and he tightens his grip around his own racquet. If Neil doesn't stop prancing around then Andrew will have to make a repeat of their first meeting.

Either Neil's unaware of his piss poor playing or he doesn't care. Neither does Andrew, not when Neil keeps turning to look at him like that. There's a skip in Neil's step, a recognizable giddiness as he runs to and fro without direction. He simply has the energy, the mindlessness to do it. The redhead turns around and moves to another random spot on the court, looking up at Andrew every few seconds and beaming. Andrew knows his expression betrays nothing, but he wonders if Neil can tell there's something...light, airy, about him.

He feels untethered to the ground, and it's unsettling for someone who hates falling so much. Yet, Andrew can't find it in himself to actually be uncomfortable.

He tracks his eyes up and down Neil's frame, watching him rock on the balls of his feet, fidgety...

There's a noticeable limp, one Neil isn't trying at all to hide. Still, Neil is lively. When Andrew locks gazes with him, there's nothing but excitement and something too soft for Andrew to name, a layer of vulnerability that sends the helium inside him spiking. Andrew almost crouches, to avoid floating away.

Andrew knows why the limp is there. After all, it's his doing, but not his fault. It doesn't feel like something guilt ridden, when Neil can't stop staring at him like he just wants to be cocooned up with Andrew in the nearest bed.

Of course, the horrible thought had tried to manifest. He saw Neil limping the morning after they went all the way, muscles worked raw from too many overzealous rounds. Andrew had encouraged his own pleasure for once, and he wondered if that meant he'd taken things too far. He'd begun to worry about if he'd still managed to cause Neil pain, agony. The one thing he'd been so desperate to avoid.

But then he remembered Neil's equal encouragement, the push of his hips with every one of Andrew's thrusts. Wanted, welcomed. The horrible thought that Andrew had somehow hurt Neil by chasing his own desire over and over had no chance to survive in the face of Neil's earnestness, the eagerness. When Neil stretched out his sore muscles the next day, the wince hadn't been one of pain, but satisfaction.

A good ache. Andrew has to squint at the choice of words, but there's no other way to describe it.

Andrew never thought that would be possible, that he could give someone that. Yet here Neil is, jogging around despite the soreness, relishing in it. Neil looks...happy.

Andrew shivers, thinking of the nail marks on his back that itch deliciously, the burn of his calves. The handprints and sensory memories don't make him cringe or grimace, they are not burdens. He doesn't feel used, or degraded, and Neil doesn't look like he does either.

It is the exact opposite of how Andrew thought he could feel after something like that, after giving, taking.

As if yearning for Andrew's gaze again, Neil snaps his head over to him while Dan attempts to give another run down of the next play. Neil's clearly not listening. Andrew watches him put weight on his better leg, and then Neil waves.

He fucking waves, and it's so stupid, so pitiful. Neil's smile is so giddy, it twists Andrew up inside. He can't begin to place what all those emotions are, only that he never thought they'd be there.

Neil confounds Andrew, day by day, minute by minute.

Andrew waves back, a lazy, almost mocking thing, but it has a powerful result anyways. He gets to watch Neil's eyes brighten considerably while he goes to wipe his bangs out of his face. Andrew's glad he'd ditched the helmet for a moment.

Andrew's muscles twitch. It's just a wave, yet Neil acts like it's the highlight of his day. Andrew's attention. As if he doesn't always have it in some way or another.

As if Andrew hasn't been staring at Neil just as much all day long. That's the big admission, evidence Andrew doesn't want to acknowledge. Despite his attempts to deny the urge, to squash it, Andrew had been powerless in this. Neil's presence is so apparent to him today, like the only spot of color on a black and white canvas. Andrew nearly rocks forward on the balls of his own feet, but he stops himself.

He draws the line at that, at allowing his body to give away how badly it wants to be next to Neil. How badly it yearns to leave practice with Neil in tow.

Andrew's not even sure why he changed out, but the thought of not being in close proximity to Neil had been something he couldn't fight.

Pathetic. But he followed his instincts.

Realistically, Andrew knows what this extra strong magnetic pull between them is. He and Neil are typically aware of each other, in sync, but not to this degree of distraction.

Andrew would hate to admit being like anyone else, but he knows clinginess isn't exactly abnormal after having sex for the first time. People go nuts with it, glued at the hip, ready for more, wanting to touch all the time no matter how small the gesture.

And for once, Andrew is no different. The only separation from other mindless people is that he knows the reality of this. This feeling, so strong now because of the novelty of it, will fade. He and Neil will go back to normal after they've gotten used to this new layer of their intimacy. Their levels of desire will even out; they won't go away, but they won't be this overwhelming, this much of a need.

And regardless of that knowledge, Andrew can't find an ounce of disappointment. How is that? He should grimace, vindicated in his belief that all things end. He should walk away, appeased with this proof that all feelings are fleeting.

But, he doesn't, because he doesn't feel that way at all. To acknowledge that he feels good in any way is another thing to pick apart, but doesn't surprise him on a day like this. And besides he knows the answer to his main question.

The feelings itself might be fleeting, but what will be left after it is gone...isn't anything bad. He's not bored with what's underneath all this.

He's not bored with Neil, not done with him, in any form.

Should he be concerned about this weakness, this softness? He's not sure. He doesn't care in the moment. Because even when this new excitement fades, when the 'honeymoon phase' of their first time dissolves, there will still be Neil.

Neil, who is all bad attitude, infuriating grins, and stubbornness. He will still look at Andrew in that way Andrew can't handle, he'll still be by his side with an understanding Andrew never thought he'd find from anyone. Neil, who never had to try to keep Andrew's interest anyways.

Andrew once told Neil he would get bored of him eventually, but he wonders at what point he'll have to start classifying that statement as an untruth. Not a lie, because Andrew does not lie, but something in need of revision. The silver bracelet in his pocket weighs heavy, and Andrew hopes Neil will understand the singular, boring charm on it.

A shackle, tying the plain silver chain together.

Andrew's need to feel hatred for the gesture, for Neil in general, used to be easy to summon. And now...

Neil's eyes fly to him again, and yup, there it is. Neil bites his lip, and Andrew leans forward, eyes on fire.

Now, he's gone too far to turn back. He's found Neil, and has been found in the process, whether he likes it or not.

He will have to tell Bee later next week, because he's sure she'll take some ridiculous joy in the admission: he's starting not to mind it.

Ah, to be known, indeed.

A shot flies past him, lighting up the goal. It's swift, merciless. Andrew hadn't even moved to stop it, hadn't been aware of it at all. The buzzer rings, obnoxious and deafening across the court. Even Neil freezes.

Oh. This'll be annoying.

Andrew barely has time to take it all in before Kevin is stalking over to him, and Dan sighs behind him, calling their little group into a huddle by the goal. They leave some confused freshman (and a very smug Renee) in their wake, but they just seem happy to have a break from Kevin's ruthlessness.

Allison is the only one who looks delighted instead of confused, and Andrew refuses to give her more ammo for the countless bets she has.

Kevin's helmet hits the court from how frustrated he is when he rips it off, eyes burning into Andrew's blank expression. Andrew realizes he has to pry his eyes from seeking out Neil again.

Oh Kevin, always interfering with his agenda.

And, because Andrew is an asshole and has already been caught, he takes a page from Neil's book. "Would you look at that Kevin. I missed."

Nicky and Matt both inhale sharply while Neil smirks, and Kevin finally snaps.

His accusatory hand flies out to point at Neil, and then at Andrew. "What the fuck is wrong with you two?"

Kevin isn't all hopeless, because he knows Andrew won't answer. He stares at Neil expectantly, but Neil's still looking right at Andrew, probably just relieved they're a lot closer now.

Andrew would just have to take a few steps to touch him...

"Nothin," Neil says with a shrug, and it's uncharacteristically followed by a small laugh. It's a near giggle, one usually reserved for Andrew in rare moments, and Andrew almost lets a glare slip at the thought of the others hearing it. He scolds himself for being that stupid, as brainless as Neil.

Aaron is the only one who's caught on to their weird mood, and Andrew refuses to look at his twin when he speaks. "I don't want to know."

Allison's smile is shark-like. "I definitely want to know."

Neil is squirming again, though not because of the conversation. Andrew, because he's not as smart as he thinks, accidentally let his gaze fall to Neil's neck.

"Ah relax Kevin, practice is almost over anyways," Nicky says, throwing up his hands. "It's Friday! Let them be lazy."

Kevin spins on him, and Nicky mutters something that sounds suspiciously like 'goddammit.' "What does that have to do with anything?" Kevin seethes, whipping his head to Neil. It takes a second to get Neil to look at him. "Neil, might I remind you we have a--"

"A game next week, mhm," Neil answers flippantly, twisting in place before looking back at Andrew. If Andrew cared to, he'd be smirking. "Are we going to Columbia this weekend?"

It's a question entirely for Andrew, the underlying implication being that they'll have their own room if they do, but the chorus follows.

"I'm staying with Katelyn," Aaron answers, with a small tint to his cheeks. Predictable, though can Andrew talk right then?

Nicky slumps over on the ground, as if he's actually been putting in real work during practice. "Hells yeah, I need a drink."

Kevin doesn't take well to being ignored, what a shock.

"We need to practice, Neil," he tries again, and that finally gets Neil to face him fully, expression unamused.

"I can handle it Kevin, I don't have any other choice but to play well," Neil jokes morbidly. Andrew's pretty sure he's the only one who appreciates it, but it's inaccurate. Nothing is taking Neil away from him again. The team winces at the callousness, but Neil plows on unperturbed and with an air of arrogance. "Which I always do."

Kevin looks like he doesn't know whether to strangle Neil or appreciate the confidence. It's so Kevin-like it makes Andrew want to roll his eyes.

But no, it's still all Neil. It's all instigation and the need to rile people up. Andrew really wants practice to be over.

"You heard him," Andrew says, and even Neil blinks in surprise. Andrew doesn't normally compliment Neil openly, it's too much affection for him to share or admit to. Yet, the implication is clear. It's the closest Neil will get to praise right then, and he looks ecstatic about it.

Andrew cannot stand it.

Matt and Dan snort off to the side; they didn't used to be so supportive of Neil's relationship with Andrew, but lately they seem to delight in what they call their 'bizarre flirting.'

Kevin stares at Andrew long and hard, as if that'll make him produce words in Kevin's favor. Andrew meets the gaze with some difficulty, but only because Neil is radiating 'I'm over here' energy so unabashedly.

Kevin inhales sharply, grabbing his helmet off the ground like someone would slam the door after a fight.

"Just block the damn goal," Kevin orders, and Andrew's not sure he will. He'll try not to be so unaware the next time though, if only to save him from this headache. Kevin points his racquet at his fellow striker in warning. "Neil--"

"Right, gotcha," Neil says, waving him off. Kevin storms away, and Matt actually does laugh then as he follows, the team spreading out. Allison huffs from the lack of answers, but leaves them be. She's smarter than she looks too.

However, Neil doesn't move. He rocks in front of Andrew's goal, and Andrew thinks he's actually standing closer than he was a few seconds ago.

Neil smiles that stupid smile, soft at the edges and expectant. He has to know Andrew won't kiss him here, but...Andrew wants to.

To want, to want, to want.

The same mantra from before isn't as heavy as it once was. The swarm in his head is gone, but the implications are not.

"Junkie," Andrew warns, because if Neil doesn't get back into place Kevin will really bitch them out and they'll never get to Columbia.

"That's me," Neil answers with a dangerous glint. They both know they're not talking about exy.

"Go," Andrew warns, pushing his racquet into Neil's chest. He tries not to watch Neil's limp when he stumbles, the satisfaction making the heat in his abdomen swirl.

Neil lets that laugh loose again, and Andrew drinks it up, now that's it's only for his ears.

"Okay," Neil whispers, eyes losing the teasing glint for just a moment. A different feeling takes them over, soft and sure. Andrew meets the gaze this time, unable to look away. He feels seen, and there's no 'but' or need to deny it. It's just…how he feels. Andrew is starting to believe that just sitting in that feeling, without analyzing it, might be alright every now and again. Neil waves again as he walks backwards, only turning when he absolutely has to. "Bye!"

It's unnecessary, and Andrew shakes his head. His face feels hot, but Andrew finds his response comes automatically. "Bye..."

Andrew entertains the idea that he already floated away long ago, and cannot hope to reach the ground again. But it's fine, since the air up here is fairly stable.

Neil jogs around the court some more, missing passes and looking back over at Andrew any chance he gets. Andrew stares right back, with no intention of stopping, and even indulges Neil every now and again with the tilt of his head or concealed expression.

Andrew misses a shot again about ten minutes later, letting the ball fly by his face without even looking at it. Luckily, it's the end of practice, so he can drown out Kevin's protests.

He had a good excuse; he has better things to keep track of than shots at the goal.

Kevin grumbles his displeasure all the way off the court, but Andrew stays where he is, waiting for Neil to jog over like he's been wanting to do since they stepped foot in the stadium.

It'd been the longest practice of Andrew's life, he realizes, and then shakes his head at himself for being so dramatic. Neil smirks at him, like he knows it.

And oh, he probably does.

The sight of Neil coming towards him breaks even Andrew's self-control, and he dares to take a step forward. It feels oddly right, not weak.

He meets Neil halfway, and ignores the sound of Nicky's voice, immediately followed by Aaron's loud retch when his cousin asks:

"Hey Neil, why are you walking so funny?"

[stahlop]

Once Upon a Time 2x06 “Tallahassee” Review

Reviews 1x01 1x02 1x03 1x04 1x05 1x06 1x07 1x08 1x09 1x10 1x11 1x12 1x13 1x14 1x15 1x16 1x17 1x18 1x19 1x20 1x21 1x22 2x01 2x02 2x03 2x04 2x05

The mystery man from the season premiere is finally revealed and he is Henry’s father! And apparently a complete asshole. As is August. Ugh! I get that forces apparently had to converge together to get Emma pregnant so she could put Henry up for adoption and Regina could adopt him, but did she have to be betrayed by the man she loved to do that? No wonder Emma’s such a tough cookie and doesn’t let people in. Also, Emma in the past will be referred to as young Emma to distinguish the two.

Summary: Emma and Hook climb a beanstalk to find the magic compass that will get her and Mary Margaret back to Storybrooke. In Emma’s past, we meet Henry’s father and how she ended up in jail (and how she acquired the yellow bug).

Opening: Growing beanstalk

New Characters:

Neal: I know he was in new characters previously as Mystery Man, but since we actually know who he is now, I’m putting him in here again. Also, my initial reaction to him was correct, I hate him. We first meet Neal in Portland, OR as he pops up in the backseat of the yellow bug young Emma steals. She thinks he’s the owner, but it turns out he’s also a thief, so, of course, she feels a kinship with him. Now, I’m not sure why, but the costumers did nothing to make him look any younger in this flashback, so he just seems like a creepy, older pervert using a young girl to help him with his stealing exploits. I’m not sure how old he’s supposed to be, but he’s at least 21 since he repeatedly asks young Emma out for a drink and she’s only supposed to be 17. But, I’m guessing he’s more between 23-25, even though he looks his real age which is around 35. Anyway, he gets out of a cop pulling them over by being completely misogynistic with the cop, and they go on their way. We next see him and young Emma in a convenience store and she’s very pregnant, and he refers to her as his wife. Neal distracts the cashier from him and young Emma shoplifting by asking him directions to Eugene on a map. A customer comes in and notices them stealing so young Emma pretends to go into labor. This whole scene is hilarious. They leave and we find out that young Emma is not pregnant and that she was using the bag under her dress to collect the pilfered items. And then they’re kissing in the car. Ew! They go to a motel and grab a room that a family is leaving and happens to not close the door all the way. Well, that’s lucky. Young Emma notices a dreamcatcher and explains what it is to Neal. He calls it flypaper for nightmares. He thinks they should keep it. They’re still living in the bug so young Emma doesn’t find that feasible. Neal suggests getting a real place together. Young Emma is skeptical and even suggests Neverland, which angers Neal slightly. He finds a picture of a map and tells young Emma to point to a place with her eyes closed. She points to Tallahassee, so they decide that’s where they’ll go. Young Emma asks if this is what he really wants and he says what he really wants is her. I really want to believe him, but knowing what we know later, I find it hard to believe. Neal is in a mood the next time we see him. He’s apparently wanted by the FBI and he managed to snag his poster from the post office. He stole some expensive watches when he was in Phoenix. He came to Portland and stashed them in a train locker. He tells her Tallahassee is out, he needs to head to Canada. Young Emma assumes she’ll go with him. He needs to go alone. She doesn’t think so. They argue until she decides that she’ll get the watches out of the locker. They can fence them, use the money to change their identities, and go to Tallahassee. Honestly, I thought that Neal was doing this to set young Emma up even before August came on the scene. But, apparently he really does love her and didn’t plan on being a complete asshole. So young Emma goes and gets the bag out of the locker. I’m still not sure why Neal couldn’t do this. It’s not like anyone knows where he is. Why would security think it odd if he got a bag out of a train station locker? It doesn’t seem as if it’s being watched for any reason. Why did young Emma have to be involved with this whatsoever? It seems like the fencing of the watches would be the more dangerous part of this whole scheme. Anyway, young Emma brings them to Neal and he thinks he can fence them for around $20,000. He’s going to  fence the watches and reminds her to meet him at 9:00, and gives her one of the stolen watches so she has the time. Again, seems like this would be some sort of set up, except he hasn’t met with August yet. Neal is walking to meet his fence and feels someone following him. He runs off and the person runs after him. The guy tackles him and Neal thinks it’s a cop, but it turns out to be August!  He and Neal argue about who’s doing a better job taking care of young Emma. August realizes Neal actually loves young Emma. He thinks that will make leaving her easier, because he’ll want to do right by her. August asks Neal if he believes in magic. Neal considers this before telling August that he obviously does (you didn’t answer the question Neal). August says he’s going to show Neal something that will make him believe. It’s in his typewriter box. And Neal does believe the minute he sees what’s in the box. August tells him about the curse and that Emma needs to break it, and she can’t do that with Neal in the picture. August asks him if he’ll do the right thing. And the right thing is apparently setting young Emma up for stealing the watches. WTF, Neal?  We see Neal meeting with August two months later in Vancouver, Canada. He feels guilty about young Emma (GOOD!) and just wants to know if she’s okay. August informs he she got 11 months. He says it should be him in there. Well, it’s good to know he has feelings about this. Why didn’t he just get himself arrested and not let young Emma know? Why did he have to frame her? Ugh!! Neal wants August to promise he’ll be there for young Emma since he can’t. He does. He gives August the money from the watches and the car (with a clean VIN just like young Emma had suggested) to give to young Emma so she’ll have a fresh start when she gets out of jail. He also asks that August let him know when the curse ends. I’m sorry, I don’t know what could scare Neal so much that he would frame the woman he purports to love for his crime. That is not love.

Character Observations:

Young Emma/Emma: I’m just going to come out and say it. Young Emma is an idiot. She may know how to steal a car, but she clings to Neal because they’re both thieves, and they don’t have any family. We know she’s grown up in the foster system and she was moved around a lot, so she’s clinging to the little bit of stability that she can find. Even if it’s with a much older man that is a thief. So let’s just skip to the part where she’s set up, because this whole thing is absurd. Young Emma goes to meet Neal at the prearranged location after he fences the watches. She calls him up on her flip phone and finds his number has been disconnected. Then a cop comes and tells her that her boy set her up. He called in a tip and is probably off to Canada by now. Why does the cop know all this information? Neal called in a tip to check the surveillance footage at the train station. Ok. What does this prove? She took a bag out of a locker. Unless they have proof that there were watches in that bag, they have nothing. All they have is the one watch young Emma is wearing and there is no proof she stole it. Technically, it was a gift from Neal, so she’s done no wrong there. The cop tells her to give him the watch and then asks if she knows her rights. He doesn’t even say them to her. She just answers yes. Now, while this technically wouldn’t set her free, anything she would say after this would not be admissible in court, so most likely the judge would throw out the case unless there was other evidence that could be used. So when the cop asks where the rest of the watches were and she said ‘Gone, not coming back’ (and yes, she’s actually talking about Neal), that would not be admissible in court as her knowing about the stolen watches. And the wanted poster had Neal’s picture on it of him stealing the watches! Who was young Emma’s public defender? They did a real shit job for her to get 11 months for possession of stolen goods that she a) didn’t steal and b) they never recovered. I seriously cannot figure out how the hell this case even made it to trial, let alone a guilty verdict. The only thing I could even think they’d get her on was being Neal’s accomplice, but she didn’t even know him them, and they could see what foster home she was in and that it wasn’t in Phoenix.  But back to young Emma, who is feeling very betrayed, obviously. We next see her in jail. The prison guard has a package for her that she has to open in front of her. It’s car keys to the bug, with the swan keychain. The guard says at least she has a car when she gets out, and apparently a baby, as young Emma is holding a positive pregnancy test.

In the EF, Emma volunteers to climb the beanstalk with Hook, which makes him very happy. He has a magic cuff they need to use to climb the beanstalk as it’s enchanted so no one can climb it. Was this instituted before or after Jack? Mulan gives Emma poppy powder to knock out the giant. She also asks Mulan to cut down the beanstalk after 10 hours. Emma’s story is about trust. Hook asks her to trust him several times, but after the betrayal of Neal, it seems Emma can’t trust anyone. Or at least not flirty, innuendo dripping, hot pirates. They manage to knock the giant out and get to the treasure room (with a lot of flirting from Hook, and a lot of eye rolling from Emma), before the giant wakes up and comes after them. Hook gets trapped under some fallen pieces of the roof while Emma freezes when the giant comes after them. Emma manages to trap the giant in his own cage. The giant shares with her that he is alone and how the dried bean he wears around his neck is a reminder of how all humans are killers. This hits a bit too close to home with Emma and she walks away rather than kill him with Jack’s poisoned sword. The giant frees himself and shows her a way out as a favor for not killing him. Emma starts to leave but negotiates another favor since she could have killed him twice. Turns out she wants him to not let Hook go free for another 10 hours after Emma rescues him from the rubble and then conveniently handcuffs him to a chain that happens to be there. Emma says she can’t take a chance she’s wrong about him as Hook pleads with her not to leave him there. She tells him he’ll be okay, she just needs a head start. Emma manages to get down the beanstalk right after the original 10 hours is up. Mary Margaret is upset that Emma told Mulan to cut the beanstalk down. Emma tries to explain but Mary Margaret makes it clear that they go back to Storybrooke together.  Emma hugs her (awww!) and agrees.

Hook: He’s overly flirtatious with all the ladies, but especially Emma. He’s the master of innuendos, and he’s sexy and he knows it. Plus, he can read Emma like an open book. He guesses correctly that she’s an orphan due to the same look in her eyes that the Lost Boys have. He also realizes she’s had little love in her life and asks if she’s ever been in love. She lies and answers no. But after she sees Milah’s tattoo, and deduces that Rumplestiltskin most likely killed her as well as taking Hook’s hand, she confesses that she may have been in love once. This whole conversation is weird. What does having been in love have to do with her perception of Hook?  He continues to be flirtatious throughout their whole journey up the beanstalk and once they reach the giant’s lair. And he’s dead sexy when he has to tie Emma’s hand with his scarf. Yummy! Sorry, but that’s just hot!!! He asks Emma to trust him several times but she just can’t do it, which leads to him being handcuffed in the giant’s castle and pleading with Emma not to leave him there. She tells him she just needs a head start, and he screams for her. I think we have an angry pirate now.

August: Ok, I cut August some slack for leaving Emma when he was seven, because he couldn’t handle that kind of responsibility. I get that. But now he’s technically behind her going to jail because he somehow spooked Neal into leaving her? He calls himself young Emma’s guardian angel and he’s trying to make up for leaving her when she was young. Okay, I get that, but to help frame her so she goes to jail? What’s that all about? August admits to Neal that he can’t say no to temptation, that he’s not built that way. This is true, Pinocchio was never good at making the right choice, but it’s such a cop out. And then it gets worse. Neal gives August the car keys and $20,000 to give to Emma so she has a chance to start over once she’s out of jail. Emma gets the car keys, mailed to her from Phuket, where August apparently took the money meant for Emma. August is an even bigger ass than Neal is. Neal at least felt guilty. August only came back to help Emma break the curse because he started turning into wood. That money could have let her keep Henry.

The Giant: We don’t get a lot of backstory. Only that it seems the fairy tale and EF history got his story wrong. That Jack attacked him and killed his family and he’s the only giant left. He’s very angry toward humans because of this. But in the end, he finds an ally in Emma and gives her the compass and agrees to watch Hook for 10 hours so she can get a head start.

Mary Margaret/Aurora: They find some common ground due to both having been under a sleeping curse. Aurora is having nightmares about a burning red room and someone inside it watching her. Mary Margaret seems happy to have a princess to mother, since Emma won’t let Mary Margaret mother her. And Mary Margaret goes all mother bear on Mulan when she tries to cut the beanstalk down. Mary Margaret makes it quite clear to Emma that they are going home together, no matter what.

Henry: He’s apparently having dreams of the burning red room with someone else watching him as well.

Questions:

Was Cora really going to climb the beanstalk with Hook? She doesn’t seem the type to do that.

Has Mulan been to Oz? Poppies are what put Dorothy and her crew to sleep in the movie.

How long have young Emma and Neal been together by the pretend pregnancy scene?

Is Neal having nightmares? Is that why he wanted to keep the dreamcatcher?

The map that Neal has young Emma point to is a map of all the states the motel chain is located.

What does being in love have to do with being perceptive about why Hook wants revenge on Rumplestiltskin? If Emma had never been in love she wouldn’t understand that Rumplestiltskin killed Milah? That would make her a pretty bad bail bonds person if she couldn’t figure things out like that.

Why does young Emma say Neal got away clean with stealing the watches? The wanted poster has a picture of him stealing the watches! Why does Neal have to explain about the security cameras?

Why is Neal running to Canada? They have extradition laws there. He could still be arrested and sent back to the US. Better to go to Mexico instead.

Is Neal not wanted by the FBI anymore? How is he currently living in New York if he’s still wanted by the FBI? Did he change his identity? He would have to if he has an apartment and seems to working somewhere that requires a suit.

How long has Neal had this train station locker? I don’t know what lockers were like in 1999 or 2000, but according to Google, you can only store something in a train locker for a day.

What’s in the box, August?! What’s in the box?!

Neal doesn’t seem to find August talking about curses weird at all? Could he be from the EF?

Why didn’t Neal just leave? Why did he have to set Emma up to go to jail? Just ghost her and run. 

What does it matter if Hook steals other things from the giant? 

If Neal felt so guilty about what happened to Emma that he wanted to know when the curse broke, why hasn’t he come to Storybrooke to find her? Or is he currently on his way?

Why did the giant have the compass on him? Was he expecting someone to try and steal it? Was it special to him in some way?

Are Aurora and Henry seeing each other in the burning red room? Will they be able to communicate with each other?

Did Emma spend two years in Tallahassee waiting for Neal? Or did she just like the idea of Tallahassee enough to go there after she was free?

Observations:

It’s nice that Emma’s false eyelashes stay on so well throughout this entire journey without bugging her at all.

There are apparently no more magic beans to make portals with, as they were destroyed by the giants after a great war led by Jack the Giant Slayer. 

The swan pendant Emma wears around her neck is the keychain Neal stole for her.

Tallahassee is not near a beach. The closest beach is about 90 miles away.

According to the wanted poster, Neal’s birthday is March 23, 1977. That makes him 22-23 at this point.

Now we know why young Emma went to jail in Phoenix; that’s where Neal stole the watches.

The giant’s castle seems to be made pretty shoddily if just walking makes everything shake and pieces of the roof cave in.

Jack’s skeleton is still in the giant’s castle and his sword has his name on it.

Emma has a flower tattoo on her left wrist.

August says that Emma was sent to a minimum security prison in Phoenix. In Desperate Souls Emma says she was in juvie and her records were supposed to be sealed. A juvenile detention center and a minimum security prison are two separate places. Juvie means she’s under 18 and minimum security means she was tried as an adult.

August sent Neal the postcard in Broken.

That’s a pretty big cage considering the giant’s enemy seems to be humans.

Once Upon a Time Firsts:

We actually saw a dreamcatcher hanging in Neal’s apartment in Broken, but this time it’s shoved in our faces and we will be seeing them again throughout the series.

Hook asking Emma to trust him.

Emma’s tattoo.

Names:

Neal Cassidy: Neal Cassady is the name of a beat poet in the 60’s and hung out with Jack Kerouac. Not sure if this was intentional somehow by the writers or if Neal made up his name being that he’s a thief.

So, I’m extremely angry over young Emma’s shoddy frame job, and the fact that Neal and August got away scott free apparently. I love Hook’s flirtiness and his innuendos. All in all, Emma’s backstory was really important to understand why she doesn’t trust real easily, but I don’t see her trusting Hook any time soon, regardless of the circumstances. But she’s finally starting to trust Mary Margaret and hopefully see her as her mother.

Please leave comments and reblog! Let me know if you’d like to be tagged in future reviews.

@searchingwardrobes​ @thisonesatellite​ @justbecauseyoubelievesomething​ @laschatzi​ @profdanglaisstuff @mariakov81

[serenagaywaterford]

was I the only one who thought tuello was going to mention the 2x10 rape and not the nick thing when he arrested serena??? like, obviously I understand the thing with nick was rape regardless, but she did ask them both and june would've ended up in the colonies had she not gotten pregnant while the 2x10 rape doesn't really have any sustainable justification behind it. I don't see "I was in a mood and wanted the baby to come faster" working in court (1/2)

and I guess you can argue there's no way to prove that that rape happened, but serena got arrested before any paternal test was done so it seems as if fred's word is enough?? I guess they can get the test done later and confirm it, but I don't know, I feel like there's a way out of this for serena whilst I don't think there would've been a way out if they had proof of what happened in 2x10. I just find this flimsy. (2/2)

---

No, you weren’t! I honestly... I thought it was going to be about her actual war crimes, like her blatant terrorism against the US, conspiracy to blow up state capitols, and overthrowing a democratic government via war. But hey, that’s too easy lol. Like, why on earth Fred wouldn’t turn her in for THAT, which are HUGE crimes that the ICC/Americans/etc would actually be interested in is beyond me. Oh wait, no it’s not, cos this is The Handmaid’s Tale and they don’t know shit about law or politics, or at this point common fucking sense. It’s a soap opera now.

I’m just so irritated by that whole “Let’s arrest Serena for rape!” concept because it’s entirely based on a) an individual and singular crime against a single person on foreign (sovereign) soil; not a war crime (so why the ICC would have ANYTHING to do with it is beyond me) and b) FRED WATERFORD’S WORD. Because suddenly they believe everything an admitted war criminal is saying against the woman who literally turned him in???? No, nothing suspect about that at all.

(The American government may have an interest because they do get involved in individual crimes against Americans on foreign soil. But then it gets into whether June is still an American, legally. And whether Serena is. Which is super confusing and murky. I’d say June is, and Serena likely isn’t since she probably renounced her US citizenship, but I’m also not a legal scholar or lawyer. And whether the international community even considers Gilead its own country, or just some type of military occupation on American soil. SO COMPLICATED. This is why the show should have just stayed away from all of this trash.)

I mean, we know Fred’s not lying about what happened to June then but the fact Tuello & Co. just take his word at face value with NO corroboration is absolutely fucking mental. 

Not to mention, how the FUCK does Fred even know about that? All he knows is that June got pregnant with Nick’s baby. Was he secretly listening the entire time to everything Serena has said? Cos, let’s take a step back for a second and think rationally about how the hell Fred would have access to that information lol. Serena, from what we saw, was incredibly discreet about setting it up. Was Fred actually lurking in her bushes when she talked to June about it? Was he around when Serena supposedly spoke to Nick about it? (We don’t know where that was but probably either in Nick’s apartment or in the car.) So, does Fred actually have the whole house bugged? LOLOLOLOL. Even if he saw Serena bringing June out to Nick’s apartment, he has no idea what anybody’s thoughts or feelings were about that. Serena and June could have easily been in on it together, and there was no rape involved at all! He doesn’t know that. Did he sneak up to Nick’s second floor window and watch how fucking WEIRD that whole thing was? LMAO.

To me, the fact Fred knows all that is a fucking big plot hole. He didn’t before. But suddenly he knows Serena set up Offred’s rape by Nick? Did she tell him that? Cos that would be insane of Serena to do and completely OOC. All Serena’s said is that “HA HA! The baby isn’t yours, you manky chode!”

Anyway...

To be frank, I have a post--quite a long one--sitting in my drafts about how incredibly asinine and unrealistic that charge against Serena is as a “war crime”, not to mention how weak it is just from a legal standpoint, even if we would take it as a regular rape charge. (She would literally never be found guilty, lbr. There is no solid legal basis for it (there is a flimsy one) and when you consider her defense--which is way more solid than the charge--the chances of anybody ever prosecuting her for that, let alone convicting her, are so incredibly thin, even if it was just as a regular rape crime, not a war crime.) She’d be more likely charged with something like sex trafficking or procuring (prostitution) or coercion or accessory to rape and/or conspiracy to rape. (And she’s clearly guilty of those things). Not the rape itself. It’s so! fucking! stupid! Sex trafficking would be SO much more solid of a charge cos essentially that is what she did...

She didn’t rape June in that instance much more than she murdered those kids Fred shot in the woods. She’s a shitty fucking person for putting that idea in his head, and basically saying, “Go do this for me, you pathetic little man” but she didn’t actually say the words, nor did she commit the actual crime herself. (Heyyyyaaa Lady Macbeth!) Both Fred and Nick were acting of their own free will. 

(Honestly, I will go on forever about how Nick is NOT some innocent, helpless creature. He’s a MAN (aka automatic superiority over any woman), and an EYE (AN EYE, YOU GUYS!!!! The most elite of the Gilead intelligence forces!!!), and to refuse Serena’s request would be EXPLICITLY FOLLOWING THE LAWS OF GILEAD and there is NO WAY he would ever, ever be punished by Gilead for that lmao--for following the law. If he reported Serena to Fred or even Pryce, Serena would be fucking punished--probably with death or Colonies (which is just prolonged death). And he’d have June’s supporting testimony too! What part of this misogynistic fascist state are you people missing? A lowly woman trying to make a man break the law and defile another man’s property?! HAHAHAHA. As if they’d take Serena’s side. Nick is a fucking Eye. There are instances where they do take a woman’s side, like with Janine’s random accusation--but significantly: Warren was BREAKING the law, not upholding it as Nick refusing to rape Offred and turning Serena in would have been following the law. To me, it never ever made sense that the men would just turn on their own like that over a literally mentally-ill Handmaid’s suicidal admission. I think, when it comes down to it, Naomi’s contribution made it “two witnesses” to the crime. Like, if you look at most religious texts or cult texts, they generally require more than just the victim. Some require at least 2, some 3 individuals. So for Gilead to require nothing but victim outcry is bonkers and not consistent with the type of society they claim they’ve built in the series. BUT ANYWAY, that’s a big digression...

Like miss me with that complete utter rape-apologist bullshit. He literally took advantage of the situation to put his dick inside a woman who did not essentially consent to it in that particular situation. Or, if you’re going to argue she did cos she wuvs Nick and wanted to anyway, then your case against Serena falls apart too.)

The only thing I don’t see as being up for debate is that June was raped. That’s it. That is clear and certain. It’s fact. June was raped in that apartment. (She’s raped a lot, obviously, but this was also rape. Nothing else.)

And the creepy part is by doing that she actually did save June’s life. Which is all shades of massively fucked up, and probably not her intention, but here we are. And it seems to be a big part of why June went along with the plan. If Serena hadn’t set up a rapey fuck session for Nick (which he LITERALLY COULD HAVE SAID NO TO AT ANY TIME WITH ZERO CONSEQUENCES and they could have fucked completely consentually another time), June never would have started sleeping with Nick (they had almost 2 years and never made a move on each other lbr), never would have become pregnant, and in a few months would have been sent off to the Colonies to rot. Serena is just going around saving June’s life and not even trying to lmao. Stupid gross idiot. Yes, June agreed under threat of death otherwise. So, that is NOT consent in any universe. If you must do it for survival, it’s rape. If you’re gonna die or agree to sex, that’s rape. Would she have agreed to get raped by Nick if the threat of the Colonies was not hanging over her head? No. Probably not. And Serena used that for her own ends. There is no way Serena is not a shitty criminal person for what she set up. But it’s also not a fucking crime against humanity, by definition.

So, anyway, without going into all the complexities and bullshit about Nick’s role any further, Serena’s role, etc in all this, it’s just absolutely motherfucking insane that any international law enforcement agency would charge Serena with THAT based on the word of a scorned husband who is also a massive rapist, liar, abuser, and war criminal himself. Like, give me a fucking break already.

And... I’m not gonna lie... if this was even remotely based on history/reality, they would turn a blind eye to anything Serena has done, especially if it was on such a small scale as one instance of sex trafficking. Sounds terrible to put it that way, but that is how these things roll. She’s a small little fish, comparatively. In the grand scheme of things, she’s FAR more valuable as a witness/asset against the Big Fish (Fred) and as a tool for their anti-Gileadean use. Unless they had significant evidence about ALL her crimes. She’s so much more useful as someone who has direct experience and witness to the entire rise of Gilead, including all the massive fucking terrorist crimes against an entire government and mass murders, that Fred et al. committed. To go after Serena so soon is just kneecapping their own damn case against Fred/Gilead lmao.

[This is where the rumours about Rita come in, but here’s the thing, Serena was already granted immunity for what she did under the guise of being a “Wife”. And seriously, what does Rita really know anyway? Serena’s smacked some people around. She’s locked June in her room. She makes June cry and drink gross smoothies. She helps with the Ceremony. She--with the entire system--forced surrogacy and basically kidnapped a baby. Those things, from what I can tell, are perfectly legal in Gilead for a Wife to do, just like it’s perfectly legal for Fred to whip the shit out of Serena--and Serena has been granted immunity for that shit (which is sorta funny in a way cos she basically used the Nuremberg defense, but it’s layered because she was actually a victim of Gilead too. Tricky shit). 

Now, that 2x10 rape is pretty fucking awful (and likely NOT Gilead-legal) and I’m almost certain Rita would have known about that in some way--but she also wasn’t a direct witness. But maybe she doesn’t? It would be fucking stupid of the Waterfords to be like, “Hurr durr let’s illegally pregnancy rape the Handmaid with a Martha an/or Guardian around even tho it comes with a punishment of DEATH!” But I suppose they are not exactly the sharpest tools in the shed either... 

Maybe she knows about the Rapey Sex Date Serena set up for Nick, maybe not, also not a witness to it. We can make assumptions about what Rita knows and doesn’t know, but also... like, none of that matters? (Yet.) Those are just regular fucking crimes on foreign soil and the American and Canadian governments have no jurisdiction to prosecuting them. War crimes require different criteria and Serena smacking Rita in the face isn’t a war crime. It’s shitty assault, but not something any international body would EVER go after.]

Anyway, the show is stupid af for suggesting they’d go after Serena for that singular instance of rape as a war crime. Crimes against humanity--of which YES sexual slavery (sex trafficking in this way) is--require widespread and/or systematic implementation. Serena was NOT going around making all Guardians rape Handmaids for her to get a baby. (Gilead however, and FRED WATERFORD specifically, were directly responsible for the SYSTEM of massive sexual slavery that they created AND maintained. Serena didn’t even come up with the Handmaid idea--THAT WAS THE MEN IN THAT DAMN CAR (Hi Nick, you were there too!).) 

Like... ugh. Stick with what you know, THT. Cos clearly it isn’t anything remotely in the legal realm.

But hey, they had to make up some way to either put Serena on trial for an entire season (YAWNNNNN), or send her back to Gilead. If it’s for the latter reason, and it means we’ll revisit the June/Serena dynamic as the core component of the show, then I’ll let it slide but if it’s to set up the Miller Wet Dream Trial Season and keep Fred/Serena forced together, then I’m livid.

Not that I should care at all considering how many times I’ve said I’m not even watching it anymore, heh.

[ahsokaismyqueen]

"Do you see that? I knew it. He lied." // "I love you. I want you to know that since we're all going to die soon." // "I have a really bad idea." // "So do I get a gun now?" // "Do I look desperate to you? Because I feel pretty desperate."

“Did you see that? I knew it. He lied.” 

She was way too pleased with herself. Okay, so she had been right. He would admit that now. He had been fooled by the local mechanic. They had bonded over bowling, something that only a few people knew Hayden actually enjoyed and was pretty good at. He had let his guard down because of that. Hayden had wanted to believe that he had nothing to do with the drug supply coming into town. Here was the proof otherwise. He let out a sigh. He really hated admitting that he was wrong. Especially to her. Mostly because she got just so much pleasure out of it. He would be the bigger person though. “Fine. You were right. I was wrong. Now what are we going to do about it?” He definitely didn’t know what to do. “None of this is actually admissible in court, you realize that right? We broke in here without a warrant. Correction, you broke in here.” Hayden was definitely not going to go down for that. Not that he expected much more than a lecture, but he was already on his boss’s bad side, he didn’t want to make that worse. “We can’t use any of this as evidence. We’re going to have to prove that he’s transporting the drugs in the car parts without this, and how do you suppose we do that?” 

“I love you. I want you to know that since we’re all going to die soon.” 

She raised her eyebrows at him from across the ropes. Did she know that he loved her? Oh yes, she had worked that out ages ago even without him saying anything to her, so that was no surprise to her. The other bit though? It was rare that his self confidence slipped, but apparently now was one of those moments. Of course she could see why he would be nervous. They were both way out of their league with these matches. That was what the other people at the ring had said, and that was what the audience was saying now. It was okay though. The audience and other people’s opinions had never stopper her before. If he wasn’t confident enough about this match, she would be confident enough for the both of them. “Die soon? I don’t know about this ‘we’ you’re talking about because I’m about to go up there and kick some ass just like I did with you.” She smirked at him before leaning across the ropes and giving him a quick kiss on the lips. Cecelia wasn’t one for public displays of affection, but she felt as if he needed it at the moment. “I will be fine. As will you, and you’ll find out if I feel the same way after you go kick his ass. Give you something else to fight for.” With another quick grin, she turned around, ready to face her opponent and show everyone what she was made of once again. 

“I have a really bad idea.”

That was not something he had ever really wanted to hear come out of his best friend’s mouth. Ellis wasn’t normally one for bad ideas. She was one of the smartest women that he knew. Normally, all of her ideas were pretty amazing. Especially when it came to work or something like that. On the other hand though, while he thought she was amazing, her worst ideas usually came when it involved dating. After all, she had dated his brother. Multiple times. Usually though, she didn’t realize those were bad decisions. So the fact that she was pointing out that she already knew it was a bad decision was making him equal parts nervous and curious. Was it another guy? Something to do with the baby? There was just endless amounts of possibilities. He liked to think that she was just exaggerating, and it wasn’t a terrible idea, but Simon was still nervous. “So … what is it? Should I prepare the first aid kit or bail money?” He joked even though his heart was still pounding with nerves. 

“So, do I get a gun now?” 

“What? No! Of course you don’t get a gun! Don’t you want to win?!” Rylee asked him in a furious whisper. “This is not funny! Stop laughing at me!” She whispered roughly as she couldn’t help but notice the glint in his eyes that told when he was trying not to laugh. If she had been in his position she would probably be laughing too though. Rylee knew that she took paintball way too seriously. It was a product of growing up in a house where she had constantly felt the need to prove herself. Most of her family wasn’t very good in any athletic, so it was something she had tried to take up. Unfortunately, the only sport that she had really been able to do good at was this. After years of practice, she had to admit she was pretty decent with a gun. At least one filled with paintballs. Just because her brother and his new girlfriend happened to be brilliant with physics didn’t mean that she was about to lose to them because her boyfriend’s hand/eye coordination was less than perfect. She could do more with two guns than he could do with one. So yes, you could say she was a little competitive. Rylee knew that she was probably being too harsh though so she tried to lighten her tone as she whispered to Ezra. “Listen babe, I love you, but I’m not about to lose to those two and give up my bragging rights that I’ve had for the past five years. So just stick with me, and I’ll make sure you don’t get hit too hard.” Rylee smiled brightly at him before leaning in and giving him a quick peck. “Now you peek around the corner and see if you can spot where they are.” 

“Do I look desperate to you? Because I’m feeling pretty desperate.” 

“You don’t look desperate. You look like a professional young teacher. You look amazing.” Eric tried to reassure her. He knew that she was desperate to make a good impression today. After all, this meeting with the new principal at her school would definitely have a big impact on her future with the school that she was now teaching at. He knew that she liked it there, and honestly, he liked having her at the same school as his daughter in case there was some sort of emergency that he was unable to get to. He wanted this meeting to go just as well as she did, and to make sure it did, Eric was going to do the best he could to build up her confidence. “Seriously, with how well your students have done with improvement this year, and how all of the parents love you, especially me of course, he’d be crazy not to keep you and give someone else tenure.” He stood up and pulled her tight into his arms, placing a little kiss to the top of her head. “You’re going to do so amazing, get tenure, and then I can quit my job, and we can live off your teacher’s salary.” Eric said, with a big, joking grin.

[pennsylvaniaprelawland-blog]

Polygraph Tests: Efficacy and Utility Examined

By Emily Condon, University of Pennsylvania Class of 2021

October 9, 2019

At an early age, the development of deception skills marks progress. Children as young as two

years old begin to concoct lies, often for personal benefit, and these lies reflect the ability of the child to anticipate consequences and others’ behavior. Lying never ceases to provide the opportunity for personal gain, and as humans develop, these opportunities may seem irresistible and weighted, especially in the context of a criminal investigation or career development. Polygraph examinations, colloquially dubbed ‘lie-detector tests,’ seek to measure these diversions from the truth in such settings, and while the mechanisms associated with the exam involve scientific measurements, the test has proven unreliable in most courts, inadmissible evidence. However, the polygraph exam persists, and along with its frequent appearances in movies and on reality television, the tool is used in job screenings and investigations with more frequency than its accuracy imposes. Below, we will examine the utility of this tool and discuss the role it continues to play, despite its suspect reliability.

The most common type of polygraph exam, which happens to be the one that’s most publicized in the media, is the Control Question Test (CQT). In the CQT, the examiner asks both general and specific questions. Specific questions relate to immediately relevant subject matter. For example, in the criminal investigation in the murder of a man by firearm, an examiner might ask the wife of the victim, “Did you shoot your husband in the chest last Tuesday night?” General questions relate to a person’s past, and ask, for example, “Have you ever violated someone’s trust?” (APA) The idea behind this bifurcated line of questioning is to ask general questions that are vague and difficult to answer completely truthfully in order to create a baseline level of anxiety. If the person is innocent, they will be more likely to show signs of anxiety about general questions, because they have definitive, clear answers to the specific questions. Using the example questions above, an innocent wife knows for sure that she didn’t shoot her husband but may fumble when it comes to the question of betraying trust, needing to think back. This creates a situation in which her biological responses indicate more anxiety about general questions rather than specific ones. However, a guilty wife knows she committed the crime, and won’t have the same reaction to specific questions because she must lie to maintain innocence, the lying process often eliciting biological responses linked to deception. (Stromberg, 2014)

In terms of mechanics, the polygraph exam is quite simple. Variation exists across machines, however, in general, examiners attach between four and six sensors to the subject, including finger sensors, chest straps, and a blood pressure cuff. These sensors and others serve to  measure the subject’s blood pressure, pulse, respiration rate, and perspiration, among other factors. A combination of these factors and strategic questioning yields physical results for interpretation by the examiner, designed to determine if the subject told the truth throughout his or her questioning. The idea is that when any one of these factors is elevated, breathing rate, pulse, and/or the other aforementioned items measured, the person can be assumed to be lying. (How Stuff Works) A large part of this alleged pseudoscience, however, proves subjective and manipulatable, and as there exists no biologically-based measure for deception, the test surely measures the correlation of biological symptoms, and subsequent findings aren’t as easy to corroborate. “‘There's no unique physiological sign of deception. And there's no evidence whatsoever that the things the polygraph measures — heart rate, blood pressure, sweating, and breathing — are linked to whether you're telling the truth or not,’ says Leonard Saxe, a psychologist at Brandeis University who's conducted research into polygraphs.” (Stromberg, 2014)

Another drawback and link in the chain of inadmissibility for this device is the fact that the test can be fooled, and subjects can markedly manipulate the accuracy of the test results. These tests can be stifled through many means, for example, by medication or psychological manipulation. Taking certain muscle relaxants or mind-altering drugs before a polygraph may inhibit the validity of a test, numbing a person to the stimuli and potentially blocking a natural biological reaction to the need to lie for oneself. It’s easy to see how taking a benzodiazepine, for example, designed to limit or inhibit a person’s anxiety, may impact the results of the exam. A person may also engage in thought-control to cause their body to artificially elicit biological responses at strategic moments to create areas of interest on the test results. Publication of these strategies is abundant, and suggests the success of these strategies, which devalue the accuracy of readings further.

The New York Times published an interview with a former Oklahoma City police detective and polygraph examiner named Doug Williams to explain the strategy behind mind control. “‘Before your test, practice deciphering between the two question types. “‘Go to the beach’” when you hear a relevant question, Williams says. Calm yourself before answering by imagining gentle waves and warm sand. When you get a control question, which is more general, envision the scariest thing you can in order to trigger physiological distress; the polygraph’s tubes around your chest measure breathing, the arm cuff monitors heart rate and electrodes attached to you fingertips detect perspiration. What is your greatest fear? Falling? Drowning? Being buried alive? “‘Picture that,’” Williams says.” (Wollan, 2015)

If these tests are so fallible, why do we still use them? One common use for polygraph testing is the screening of job candidates and employees. Those seeking employment with the NSA, CIA, and several other government agencies are often subject to polygraph tests. Additionally, the exams may be used as a scare tactic. The examiner may attempt to convince the subject that this test will reveal the complete truth, so he may as well confess. This strategy has the potential to lead to proof of guilt that may have otherwise flown under the radar, undetected by the exam. These tests may also be used as a deterrent, for example, in post-conviction sexual offender treatment programs. (Bear Forensics, 2019) If a person knows they’ll undergo polygraph testing related to their behavior, they may feel more inclined to perform only behaviors that won’t get them in trouble. (Cummins, 2019)

Clearly, the debate about the role of polygraphs in our society remains active. It’s clear that while polygraphs can point investigators in the right direction, they aren’t fool-proof. A large gap exists between the hard science of DNA testing, for example, and the alleged pseudoscience of interpreting manipulatable and subjective polygraph results, and therefore, it’s clear why most courts don’t allow polygraph testing as admissible evidence. The utility of the exam extends beyond court cases, though, and therefore, extinction of the exam is unlikely any time soon.

________________________________________________________________

(n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/is-a-polygraph-test-admissible-as-evidence-31737.

(n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.

12 Common Lies That Cheaters Tell says: (2018, December 6).

Polygraph testing explained: Process and steps of a lie detector exam. Retrieved from https://bearforensics.com/2017/08/24/polygraph-testing-explained/.

Conti, A. (2014, November 18). Are Lie Detector Tests Complete... Retrieved from https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qbeaeq/are-lie-detector-tests-complete-bullshit-1117.

Contributors, H. S. W. (2019, September 11). How Does a Lie Detector (Polygraph) Work? Retrieved from https://science.howstuffworks.com/question123.htm.

Cummins, E. (2019, March 18). Polygraph tests don't work as lie detectors and they never have. Retrieved from https://www.popsci.com/polygraph-test-science/.

Handler, M. (n.d.). Polygraph Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from https://apoa.memberclicks.net/polygraph-frequently-asked-questions.

Horton, S., Horton, S., Horton Law PLLC, & Horton Law PLLC. (2018, July 20). Polygraph Testing at Work. Retrieved from https://hortonpllc.com/polygraph-testing-work/.

Kismet, M. (2018, February 9). Polygraph Tests and How to Beat Them. Retrieved from https://owlcation.com/social-sciences/How-To-Beat-A-Polygraph-Test.

Stromberg, J. (2014, December 15). Lie detectors: Why they don't work, and why police use them anyway. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/2014/8/14/5999119/polygraphs-lie-detectors-do-they-work.

Wollan, M. (2015, April 10). How to Beat a Polygraph Test. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/12/magazine/how-to-beat-a-polygraph-test.html.

[wolfandpravato]

Taylor Swift, butt-touching, a gender studies professor and evidence law — all in one court decision

Taylor Swift performs on Oct. 22, 2016, in Austin. (Darron Cummings/Associated Press)

An interesting federal district court opinion handed down last week in Mueller v. Swift:

Plaintiff [David Mueller] worked as an on-air radio personality for a Denver area radio station, KYGO. On June 2, 2013, he attended a backstage “meet and greet” preceding a concert performed at Denver’s Pepsi Center by [Taylor] Swift. Ms. Swift alleges that during a staged photo opportunity at that event, Plaintiff purposefully and inappropriately touched her buttocks, while Plaintiff denies having done so. After KYGO was informed of Ms. Swift’s accusation, Plaintiff was terminated from his job, and this lawsuit followed.

(From an earlier opinion: The plaintiff is suing for tortious interference with an employment contract, which is connected to a defamation theory; Swift is countersuing for assault and battery.)

In the course of litigation, Swift and her co-defendants have disclosed Dr. Lorraine Bayard de Volo to testify as an expert witness … Plaintiff’s present Motion seeks to exclude portions of her proposed testimony pursuant to [Federal Rules of Evidence] Rule 702 and other evidentiary authorities.

As set out in her written disclosure, Dr. Bayard de Volo is the Chair and Associate Professor of Women and Gender Studies at the University of Colorado–Boulder. She has a Ph.D. in political science and a graduate certificate in women’s studies, and has had 20 years of teaching and research experience in the field of gender and violence. Her Report discloses the following … summary opinion[] related to this case [a separate opinion was not at issue, so I omit it -EV]:

Sexual harassment and assault are fundamentally motivated by the perpetrator’s perceived need to assert power and to protect the perpetrator’s status. Throughout David Mueller’s pleadings in this lawsuit and his deposition testimony, he indicated that even before he met Ms. Swift, he felt his job security was threatened, his identity as a radio personality was threatened, and his masculinity was threatened. This perfect storm of threats to Mr. Mueller’s perceived status is consistent with the well-settled, academically-accepted, perceived threats to status that motivate a man to commit sexual harassment or assault. …

Dr. Bayard de Volo’s Report … explains, in part, that in her view there is a professional or research consensus “that sexual harassment and sexual assault (including inappropriate physical contact) are fundamentally motivated by power and protection or enhancement of the aggressor’s status. In cases of men targeting women, it is an assertion of men’s gender-based social power and most typically targets women who challenge men’s status in some manner.”

Dr. Bayard de Volo’s Report … concludes that on June 2, 2013, Plaintiff “faced an accumulation of perceived threats to his status” that were consistent with the kinds of “threats to status that … motivat[e] sexual harassment and sexual assault.” Describing this “accumulation of threats” in greater detail, her Report describes, for example:

“Threats to job status,” describing evidence that, in Dr. Bayard de Volo’s opinion, shows that Plaintiff “perceived significant tensions with his [boss] at KYGO, Eddie Haskell”;

“Threats to status as a radio personality,” describing Dr. Bayard de Volo’s opinion that Plaintiff “perceived that he did not receive from Ms. Swift and the Swift tour personnel the professional respect he thought he deserved,” because he “was not recognized as a radio personality during the meet-and-greet event” and “expected a certain level of treatment from Ms. Swift … that he did not receive”;

“Threats to masculine status,” offering Dr. Bayard de Volo’s opinion that “dynamics with [Plaintiff’s] girlfriend … exacerbated his annoyance and perception of emasculation,” in part based on Plaintiff’s testimony suggesting that when they met at the “meet and greet,” Ms. Swift “was really excited about [his girlfriend],” while Plaintiff “felt like [he] was invisible.”

In sum, Dr. Bayard de Volo opines that Plaintiff’s “testimony reveals that he was frustrated … as neither his boss, the Swift team, or in the end, Ms. Swift herself, would acknowledge him in a way that would confirm his perceived elevated status as a radio show host,” and that “his stated perception of events and his view of his own status is consistent with the circumstances under which sexual aggressors would commit unwanted sexual contact, such as grabbing a woman’s bottom.” She also opines that Plaintiff’s “testimony and pleadings … indicate his belief that unwanted sexual contact is something that men in radio can get away with,” for several reasons, including that improper touching might be viewed as “his prerogative as a radio host who regularly met with famous women.”

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A district court must act as a “gatekeeper” in admitting or excluding expert testimony. Admission of expert testimony is governed by Rule 702, which provides:

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

The proponent of the expert testimony bears the burden of proving the foundational requirements of Rule 702 by a preponderance of the evidence.

While an expert witness’s testimony must assist the jury to be deemed admissible, it may not usurp the jury’s fact-finding function. The line between what is helpful to the jury and what intrudes on the jury’s role as the finder of fact is not always clear, but it is well-settled that “[a]n opinion is not objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate issue.”

Ultimately, “the rejection of expert testimony is the exception rather than the rule.” “[T]he trial court’s role as gatekeeper is not intended to serve as a replacement for the adversary system … . Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.”

However, in addition to analysis under Rule 702, an expert’s proposed testimony still must be relevant and otherwise admissible. To be relevant, expert testimony must “logically advance[ ] a material aspect of the case” and be “sufficiently tied to the facts of the case that it will aid the jury in resolving a factual dispute.”

Furthermore, “[e]xpert testimony, like any other evidence, is subject to exclusion if it fails the Fed. R. Evid. 403 balancing test,” that is, if the probative value of the expert’s testimony would be “substantially outweighed by a danger of … unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”

III. ANALYSIS

… B. Rule 702(a) Analysis

… Dr. Bayard de Volo’s … opinions do not explain evidence which will be before the jury that it otherwise could not understand, such as drug paraphernalia, gang practices, or some technical matter. The jury will have ample direct and readily comprehensible evidence from which to resolve the central factual question of whether Plaintiff did or did not improperly touch Ms. Swift. The jury will have a much better opportunity than Dr. Bayard de Volo herself has had to draw their own conclusions of whether Plaintiff actually perceived the kinds of threats to his masculinity that her Report describes and, if so, how he responded in the event.

Thus, applying the common sense inquiry required under Rule 702(a), … the Court concludes that Dr. Bayard de Volo’s opinion would do little, if anything, to assist the jury in understanding the case and the evidence material to the central factual dispute in these proceedings. Whether the jury finds, based on the testimony and other evidence, that Plaintiff did improperly touch Ms. Swift, or finds that he did not, the questions of what motivated him to do so, including any perceived threats to his purported status as a powerful male, will be beside the point.

If anything, this testimony would be unhelpful to the jury because it would tend to complicate the otherwise straightforward question of “what happened” with issues of why it happened, and whether what occurred in this case was or was not consistent with alleged broader societal patterns of men reacting in physically threatening ways to powerful women who threaten their masculinity. Thus the Court finds that Dr. Bayard de Volo’s opinion would do little to assist the jury in resolving the disputed issues in this case.

C. Rule 403 Analysis

Even more conclusively, however, the Court finds that the probative value of Dr. Bayard de Volo’s opinion would be substantially outweighed by the significant risks of prejudice, confusion of the issues, and misleading the jury. As a consequence, the professor’s [opinion] must be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, irrespective of whether or not it would otherwise be admissible under Rule 702.

The explanation of the unduly prejudicial nature and the limited probative value of the expert testimony at issue in Robbie, [a California precedent,] is persuasive on this point. In Robbie, the defendant was charged with acts of sexual assault and contested, essentially, whether the sexual contact had been consensualThe prosecution called an expert witness to testify, in effect, that the “defendant’s conduct was consistent with being a rapist.” The expert “was never directly asked to opine whether defendant was a sex offender,” but did opine that specific aspects of his alleged conduct were common in instances of rape, and that the combined circumstances of the case reflected “the most common type of behavior pattern” in sex offenses.

On appeal, the conviction was reversed because admission of this expert testimony was held to constitute reversible error, given the degree of prejudice it created. The Court explained the problems with this testimony, in part, as follows:

[P]rofile evidence is inherently prejudicial because it requires the jury to accept an erroneous starting point in its consideration of the evidence. We illustrate the problem by examining the syllogism underlying profile evidence: criminals act in a certain way; the defendant acted that way; therefore, the defendant is a criminal. Guilt flows ineluctably from the major premise through the minor one to the conclusion. The problem is the major premise is faulty. It implies that criminals, and only criminals, act in a given way. In fact, certain behavior may be consistent with both innocent and illegal behavior, as the People’s expert conceded here…. The jury was invited to conclude that if defendant engaged in the conduct described, he was indeed a sex offender.

The Robbie court also later reiterated that such evidence should be excluded when it “improperly invite[s the jury] to conclude that, because the defendant manifested some characteristics, he committed a crime,” and is “offered to establish a stereotype then condemn the defendant for fitting it.” …

Dr. Bayard de Volo’s opinion — in effect that she believes Plaintiff felt threatened and that committing an act of assault because of that perception would be consistent with broader patterns of assault — creates a very substantial risk of prejudice against Plaintiff and of confusing the issues at trial. Her opinion would be tantamount to characterizing Plaintiff as someone who had the motives and characteristics typical of a perpetrator of sexual assault. Her testimony on this topic would also risk creating tangential and prejudicial disputes at trial, such as whether Plaintiff did or did not feel “threats to his masculinity,” and raising inflammatory and emotional issues regarding the extent and patterns of sexual assault and violence against women as a whole.

All of this would lead the trial astray from its central purpose, that is, resolving an individual dispute between individual parties, based on the facts and evidence of that dispute. Cf. Fed. R. Evid. 404, Advisory Committee Notes to 1972 Proposed Rule (“Character evidence is of slight probative value and may be very prejudicial. It tends to distract the trier of fact from the main question of what actually happened on the particular occasion. It subtly permits the trier of fact to reward the good man and to punish the bad … despite what the evidence in the case shows actually happened.”).

On the other hand, in part for the reasons explained in Robbie, the potential probative value of Dr. Bayard de Volo’s opinion as to matters actually in dispute (i.e., “what actually happened”) is slight. Coming from an expert with no personal knowledge of whether Plaintiff did or did not improperly touch Ms. Swift, it would add very little to the other evidence which the jury will hear. Ultimately, the existence of broader social patterns has little to do with how the parties actually acted, or failed to act, on the date in question. Cf. Robbie (expert’s testimony “implie[d] that criminals, and only criminals, act in a given way. In fact, certain behavior may be consistent with both innocent and illegal behavior.”).

In sum, the Court holds that Ms. Bayard de Volo’s “[opinion]” (including with the analysis underlying it, is also inadmissible under Rule 403, because its limited probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, and/or misleading the jury.

[Footnote moved: The Court has some doubts that Dr. Bayard de Volo had sufficient basis and qualifications to reach the conclusions she did regarding what threats Plaintiff perceived. She is not trained in psychology and has not interviewed Plaintiff. She relied on assorted excerpts from his deposition testimony but also very substantially on a pleading written by Plaintiff’s lawyer and crafted to advance his legal claims in this litigation. Plaintiff’s pleadings of course are not evidence and do not establish any facts, and it is doubtful what conclusions regarding Plaintiff’s perceived threats can be fairly drawn from materials prepared in litigation by his lawyer years after the events in question. Since Plaintiff does not argue this issue, the Court does not further address it.]

When evidence should be excluded from the jury often raises interesting and difficult questions, partly because many inferences are potentially rational but might be seen as too tenuous. Thus, for instance, though the court argued that “the otherwise straightforward question of ‘what happened’ ” should not be complicated “with issues of why it happened,” whether a person has a motive to do something is often relevant to deciding whether he indeed did it. (Motive alone, of course, isn’t sufficient evidence to prove what someone did, but it may still be a relevant part of the evidence that the jury should consider.) On the other hand, the rules of evidence provide that not all relevant evidence is admissible, but some may be excluded because it’s unduly confusing or prejudicial. So I thought I’d pass along the opinion, and leave it to you to evaluate it for yourselves.

Originally Found On: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/07/27/taylor-swift-butt-touching-a-gender-studies-professor-and-evidence-law-all-in-one-court-decision/

[newstfionline]

Headlines

The stimulus effect (NYT) The United States went into the Great Lockdown with the most household debt in history, stagnant incomes for all but high earners and armies of people telling pollsters they were living paycheck to paycheck. Then, for millions, their paychecks stopped. But instead of a stampede to the bankruptcy courts, personal bankruptcy filings—a useful, if extreme, indicator of the financial health of the American consumer—dropped sharply from April through June, even as unemployment soared. One reason for this counterintuitive picture: The federal government’s stimulus package, which, beginning in April, has put cash into unemployed people’s hands on a weekly basis, allowing them not just to buy groceries and pay rent, but to pay down existing debt.​

Facing uncertain fall, schools make flexible reopening plans (AP) Administrators in the Parkway school district in suburban St. Louis spent the summer break crafting a flexible reopening plan, with options that include full-time classroom learning, full-time online instruction and a hybrid system. It’s a good thing because the dangers of the coronavirus are so uncertain that district officials are reluctant to make predictions about the fall semester, which begins in only five weeks. Confirmed coronavirus infections in Missouri’s hardest-hit city waned in June, but they are now spiking, along with hospitalizations. Schools plan to resume classes Aug. 24. “If you had asked me even two weeks ago, ‘Do you think we would be able to come back?’ I would have said, ‘Yeah,’” Assistant Superintendent Kevin Beckner said. “Today my answer is ‘I’m not sure,’ just because of how the situation has changed so quickly.” Schools around the U.S. face the same dilemma. With the number of reported COVID-19 cases and deaths still rising, districts must grapple with whether to bring students back to classrooms, and how to keep pupils and teachers safe if they do.

Vulnerable Border Community Battles Virus (NYT) On a sweltering day last week near the southern tip of Texas, where high rates of poverty and chronic illness have heightened the ferocity of the coronavirus, Dr. Renzo Arauco Brown made his rounds, checking on patients who were facing severe complications from the virus and barely hanging on to life. The now-chaotic special infectious disease unit where he works has been clobbered with new admissions in recent weeks. As the coronavirus expands its destructive path across the United States, it is bearing down on some of the places most vulnerable to its devastation—places like the southernmost wedge of Texas, on the border with Mexico, which has seen a punishing surge in infections. In the Rio Grande Valley, more than a third of families live in poverty. Up to half of residents have no health insurance, including at least 100,000 undocumented people, who often rely on under-resourced community clinics or emergency rooms for care. Tick off the list of risk factors for developing severe complications from the virus and you will have described this margin of the country: More than 60 percent of residents are diabetic or prediabetic. The rates of obesity and heart disease are among the nation’s highest. More than 90 percent of the population is Latino, a group that is dying from the virus at higher rates than white Americans are.

Mexican president sticks to no-war approach after shocking cartel video (Reuters) Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador said on Monday he would maintain a less confrontational approach to battling drug gangs even after one of Mexico’s most powerful cartels showcased its firepower in a video that stunned Mexicans. A video purportedly shot by the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG), showing dozens of armed gang members in bullet proof vests in front of armored cars painted in military-style camouflage, went viral on social media on Friday. Lopez Obrador said he would not repeat the mistakes of previous administrations that failed to contain cartel violence, which surged after former President Felipe Calderon launched a military-led crackdown on the gangs in late 2006. “Violence cannot be confronted with violence, fire cannot be extinguished with fire, evil cannot be confronted with evil,” he said. “Evil must be confronted with good.” Lopez Obrador said his government would face down gangs with intelligence rather than force, focusing on poverty and other root causes of crime.

Insults, slammed fists: EU virus summit goes into 4th day (AP) Weary and bleary, European Union leaders were gearing up Monday for a fourth day of fighting over an unprecedented 1.85 trillion-euro ($2.1 trillion) EU budget and coronavirus recovery fund, barely recovered from a weekend of walkouts, fists slamming into tables and insults. “It looks more hopeful than when I thought during the night: ‘It’s over,’” said Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, the target of much of the criticism. It was planned as a two-day summit scheduled to have ended Saturday, but there are deep ideological differences between the 27 leaders forced the talks into two extra days. Rutte, defending the cause of a group of five wealthy northern nations—the Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Sweden and Denmark—sought to limit costs and impose strict reform guarantees. He came under criticism from Macron, Italy and Hungary, whose Prime Minister Viktor Orban asked why the Dutchman had such “hate” toward him.

‘Selfless’ Bedford faith group hands out thousands of meals (BBC) A faith group that has made more than more than 18,000 meals for key workers during the coronavirus pandemic has been praised as “selfless”. The Sri Guru Ravidass Sabha group in Bedford started cooking for NHS, police, and care home staff in April. It has now stopped making dinners for key workers, but will continue to cook for homeless and vulnerable people. Group president Jaswinder Kumar, who is a full-time postman, said his team of 10 volunteers “have done a fantastic job, but we didn’t think we would be doing it for so long”. “We have all got a little bit tired, but you get excited when you can help others,” he said.

India Rounds Up Critics Under Shadow of Virus Crisis, Activists Say (NYT) After spending several anxious days in prison, Natasha Narwal, a student activist accused of rioting by the New Delhi police, thought her ordeal was nearing an end. A judge ruled that Ms. Narwal had been exercising her democratic rights when she participated in protests earlier this year against a divisive citizenship law that incited unrest across India. But shortly after the judge approved Ms. Narwal’s release in late May, the police announced fresh charges: murder, terrorism and organizing protests that instigated deadly religious violence in India’s capital. Ms. Narwal, 32, who has said that she is innocent, was returned to her cell. As India struggles to quell surging coronavirus infections, lawyers accuse the authorities of rounding up government critics and keeping them in detention in the middle of a pandemic. It is part of a strategy, they say, to stifle activists who are protesting what they see as iron-fisted and anti-minority policies under Prime Minister Narendra Modi. In recent weeks, Ms. Narwal and nearly a dozen other prominent activists—along with potentially dozens of other demonstrators, though police records are unclear—have been detained. They are being held under stringent sedition and antiterrorism laws that have been used to criminalize everything from leading rallies to posting political messages on social media. Law enforcement officials in New Delhi, who are under the direct control of India’s home ministry, have denied any impropriety. But rights groups say the arrests have been arbitrary, based on scant evidence and in line with a broader deterioration of free speech in India.

Flooding in Asia (Foreign Policy) Nearly four million people in Nepal and India’s northeastern state of Assam have been displaced by heavy flooding caused by monsoon rains. Officials on Sunday said that 189 have died so far in the flooding, caused by an overflowing Brahmaputra River. “The flood situation remains critical with most of the rivers flowing menacingly above the danger mark,” Assam Water Resources Minister Keshab Mahanta told Reuters. In China, authorities dynamited a dam on the Chu river, a tributary of the Yangtze, in an attempt to lower water levels swollen by heavy rainfall. The rains have caused 1.8 million people in the country’s central and southern regions to be evacuated so far.

Hong Kong leader says coronavirus now spreading ‘out of control’ (AFP) The deadly coronavirus is spreading out of control in Hong Kong with a record 100 new cases confirmed, the finance hub’s leader said Sunday as she tightened social distancing measures to tackle the sudden surge in infections. The finance hub was one of the first places to be struck by the virus when it emerged from central China. But the city had impressive success in tackling the disease, all but ending local transmissions by late June. However, in the last two weeks, infections have spiked once more and doctors fear the new outbreak is now spreading undetected in the densely packed territory of 7.5 million people.

COVID-19 moves South Korea's mud festival online (Reuters) When a pandemic threatens a good romp in the mud, some South Koreans bring the mud home with them instead. The popular Boryeong Mud Festival, halted this year because of COVID-19, instead became an online celebration of soil, with people from around the country enjoying mud pools and mud packs in their homes—and streaming the dirty results. The annual mud extravaganza, in Boryeong on the coast 130 km (80 miles) southwest of the capital Seoul, is South Korea’s most popular festival for international visitors. They typically flock to the beach in their hundreds for mud slides, mud wrestling and other revelry. Boryeong launched the festival on Daecheon Beach in 1998 to rejuvenate a local economy hit by the Asian financial crisis. The event promoted mud-based cosmetics said to be good for the skin—turning what is known as a dirty beach into one of South Korea’s biggest tourist attractions.

The lights go out on Lebanon’s economy as financial collapse accelerates (Washington Post) Most parts of Lebanon are receiving no more than two or three hours of electricity a day. An incoming flight at Beirut’s airport had to abort a landing this month because the lights on the runway went out. The traffic signals in the capital have stopped working, adding to the congestion on Beirut’s already chaotic streets. These are among the latest symptoms of an economic implosion that is accelerating at an alarming pace in Lebanon as its government, its banks and its citizens run out of foreign currency simultaneously. The collapse is the result of decades of economic mismanagement, corruption and overspending. Hopes for a rescue are fading as the country’s ruling elites balk at the kind of reforms and outside scrutiny that would unlock international aid. Talks with the International Monetary Fund to secure a $10 billion loan have stalled. Known as an oasis of prosperity and relative stability during the past decade of Middle East turmoil, Lebanon is descending into poverty, despair and potentially chaos. Economists are now predicting a Venezuela-style collapse, with acute shortages of essential products and services, runaway inflation and rising lawlessness—in a country at the heart of an already unstable region.

Egypt parliament backs deployment abroad after Sisi says could intervene in Libya (Reuters) Egypt’s parliament on Monday approved the deployment of armed forces abroad to fight “criminal militias” and “foreign terrorist groups” on a “western front”, after President Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi said Cairo could intervene in Libya. The decision came after Sisi said last week that Egypt would not stand idle if there was threat to national security in Egypt and its western neighbour, Libya, if parliament gave its approval. Shortly beforehand the Egyptian presidency said Sisi had agreed with U.S. President Donald Trump to maintain a ceasefire in Libya and avoid any escalation.

Home learning, reopening schools especially hard in Africa (AP) Lessons via radio or TV. Math problems in newspapers. Classes on Zoom or WhatsApp. The options for African students to keep studying while schools remain closed because of the coronavirus pandemic seem varied, but the reality for many is that they will fall behind and possibly drop out of school forever—worsening inequality on an already unequal continent. “I think education now is more of an emergency than the health issue,” said Dr. Mary Goretti Nakabugo, a literacy expert who runs a Uganda-based education nonprofit called Uwezo, noting that there have been no reported virus deaths and just over 1,000 cases in Uganda. Children “are completely helpless at the moment.” Although the pandemic has disrupted education across the globe, the schooling crisis is more acute in Africa, where up to 80% of students don’t have access to the internet and even electricity can be unreliable, making distance learning difficult, if not impossible. Schools also often provide a refuge to vulnerable children, offering services that their families cannot afford.

[mayarosa47]

Family Lawyer Draper Utah

In any family law dispute, the probability of winning increases with the skillful presentation of evidence. Don’t fight a family law dispute in court without an experienced Draper Utah family lawyer. Evidence is information presented to a court to support or refute a case or a position in a lawsuit. Evidence may include oral testimony as well as tangible material such as documents, exhibits, and demonstrative aids. Evidence is critical to the outcome of a case, since courts decide verdicts based upon the evidence. However, not all evidence in a case is heard by the court; only evidence that is relevant and admissible plays a role in the outcome of a case.

Expert Witness

An experienced Draper Utah family lawyer will review the facts of your case and determine if you need to use an expert witness. Basically, an expert witness provides an unusual input into a trial. The general rule in a civil trial is that a witness may testify only as to what he or she has seen or heard.

In trial practice, this is an individual who assists trial counsel to prepare an expert witness for trial. In general, since they work with trial counsel preparing the case for trial, what they produce for a client is not subject to discovery. In the federal court system, discovery, the pre-trial process whereby the parties exchange information, specifically applies to expert witnesses. They generally do not apply to those working with the trial counsel, usually including a consulting expert.

While, in some cases, the emotions of the witness may be a subject for testimony, the average witness is not permitted to offer an opinion or to discuss an event which he or she did not actually see. The formation of an opinion, based on the facts in evidence, is traditionally the responsibility of the jury, or of the judge when there is no jury. The use of an expert witness is an exception to this rule. The reasoning for this exception is that some situations are so complex that an expert must be brought in to explain the significance of what is in evidence to a jury However, since the American common-law based system still places ultimate responsibility for the finding of facts with a jury, the expert comes in as another type of witness. That means the jury must evaluate the expert’s testimony, particularly his or her conclusions, as it would that of any other witness. The jury is not required to accept what the expert says as its own conclusion. Therefore, the jury must also be told the facts on which the expert’s opinion is based, as well as the special qualifications that the expert has to be able to draw the conclusion advanced.

How is Someone Qualified as an Expert Witness?

An expert witness is typically presented to the court by one of the parties. The party presenting the expert must satisfy the judge as to the following issues:

• that there is some specialized area of knowledge that will help the jury understand the case before it

• that this area has a reasonable foundation as the subject of activities such as formal research, academic courses, professional education or licensing, trade or professional groups

• that this area has a reasonable foundation as the subject of activities such as formal research, academic courses, professional education or licensing, trade or professional groups

The way this is usually done is by having the witness being offered as an expert directly testify as to these points. Then, the witness can be considered as qualified. At that point, the expert is permitted to testify on the matter before the court. This is done by having the attorney present the expert with specific facts.

The expert can offer his or her opinion as to the meaning of the offered facts. But it is still for the jury (or judge sitting in place of a jury) to determine whether or not to accept the testimony and opinion offered. The process does not end there. The opposing trial counsel has the right to do several things. They include:

• challenging that the area of testimony is a legitimate area for expert testimony

• arguing that the expert presented is not really qualified to draw a conclusion

• asking the expert questions based on different assumptions, to elicit different conclusions

• offering up opposing expert witnesses

An expert witness, at the time of a trial, is actually qualified by the court and must be requalified each and every time that person comes to a subsequent trial for the offering of expert opinion. This qualification by each trial judge takes place regardless of how many previous times the same individual has been court-qualified before or in other jurisdictions. Other witnesses, or experts who may be called as percipient witnesses, can testify without being qualified by the court, but only as to their personal knowledge or observed information related to the matter at hand. The trier of fact (i.e., the judge alone, or the judge and jury) hears preliminary testimony from the proposed expert, elicited by the attorney presenting the case, as to the expert’s knowledge, experience, and training that demonstrate he knows more about his subject or field than does the average layperson. The qualifications of the expert can be challenged by opposing counsel, who will also be allowed to cross-examine the expert on any area of her background, training, education, or experience. The judge then will rule on that witness’s acceptability as an expert in this specific case. This challenge to a witness’s expertise can be in front of the jury or elsewhere.

This is a critical issue to be understood by science-oriented professionals, as most medical, scientific, or engineering professionals would generally be embarrassed or dismayed at calling themselves “experts.” A necessary realization, required by working expert witnesses, is that they do know more about their particular field than just about any other person who may be on a lay jury.

Witness Preparation

Witness preparation is critical in all legal cases. This doesn’t mean the testimony is changed or biased in any way, only that the person giving the testimony is a bit more familiar with what the conditions of the legal playing field will be prior to being asked to score a touchdown. Your Draper Utah family lawyer will prepare your expert witness for testimony. It is not uncommon for some attorneys to take advantage of that intimidation factor when questioning witnesses of their own or when cross-examining those on the other side. Advantage is gained if the attorney can get an opposing witness to say things that are not representative of what he believes to be correct, or things that cause the witness to lose credibility when speaking. The skilled trial lawyer will try to take advantage of any aspect of a witness’s demeanor or lack of conviction when testifying. This is why the more experienced witnesses seem to have an easier time dealing with the rigors of cross-examination.

Just as the nature of an expert witness’s testimony varies, so does the role of the expert witness. In some cases, the expert witness is used to identify problems or defects in the testimony of fact witnesses. In other cases, expert testimony is necessary to meet the burden of proof in order to establish a claim or defense. At times, expert witnesses are used primarily to match the opponent’s experts and to add persuasive strength to the proponent’s claim or defense.

Although experts are most commonly identified with their role as testifying witnesses in deposition or at trials, they also can assist attorneys in the development of the case before trial. Lawyers may hire experts to evaluate the credentials and work of other experts. Experts also may assist lawyers in understanding the technical aspects of a case by reviewing records and documents produced by the parties and by identifying and evaluating issues in a case. In addition, experts can help formulate requests for documents and other information which may become admissible evidence, or they can prepare questions for direct and cross-examination of witnesses. Expert advice may be critical in avoiding a case being dismissed by the court before trial by establishing persuasive theories of causation which should be heard and evaluated by the jury.

Another important function of expert witnesses may be to conduct tests or experiments related to an element involved in the litigation and to prepare demonstrative evidence illustrating their conclusions and the basis for them. To do so, tests and experiments must be painstakingly and extensively planned, documented, and recorded. Experts must be able to defend each step of the testing and experimental process to explain how laboratory conditions relate to the actual facts and circumstances of the case.

Types of Experts

There are two types of experts: consulting and testifying. The distinction between the two is critical because it has an impact on the disclosure of information, thoughts, and processes. Consulting experts provide background knowledge and lend their expertise outside of the courtroom. A consulting expert is used as a resource in complicated and technical areas in which lawyers have little background, often instructing and guiding lawyers on unfamiliar subject matter. A consulting expert will not be called as a witness. Testifying experts, on the other hand, go beyond the support provided by consulting experts and ultimately assist the lawyers trying a case by providing testimony either in court or in depositions.

The distinction between a testifying expert and a consulting expert is important because the identity and opinions of testifying experts must be revealed to the opposing party in advance of trial if properly requested. This means the opposing side will have access to the experts and their records and, therefore, be better able to prepare a response Because of the distinct differences in rules between the two types of experts, the work of consulting experts and that of testifying experts should be kept separate. Successful lawyers strategically balance the use of testifying and consulting experts in order to protect their cases.

The Relationship between Lawyers and Experts

Draper Utah family lawyers expect experts to be confident, persuasive, and impartial, yet not boastful or contentious. They want experts who are firm, with strength of conviction. They need experts who will explain technical, complex matters in a way that the jury fully understands and to which jurors can relate. Lawyers also want experts with appropriate credentials to support narrowly tailored opinions that will serve the lawyers’ objectives at trial. While communication and teaching skills may be more important than credentials for a testifying expert, outstanding expertise and analytical ability may be more important than the ability to communicate and teach for a nontestifying, or consulting, expert. Thus, the lawyer’s expectations will change depending on how the expert will be used. In turn, experts expect lawyers to provide a complete and thorough explanation of the case, the key issues and challenges, and the fundamental standards of proof from a legal perspective. They expect to be provided with all relevant information and documentation to which the lawyer is privy as soon as physically possible.

Lawyers should respect the ethics and professional integrity of the expert and not demand that opinions be slanted in order to bolster the case. Experts need lawyers to clearly describe and explain the interrelationships between their testimonies and those of other experts involved in the case so the experts can prepare to explain conflicts of opinion.

Experts also expect attorneys to educate them about the nature of the legal proceedings and vocabulary, as well as what is expected of the expert at each juncture. In a positive working relationship with an experienced Draper Utah family lawyer, an expert will be treated as a peer over the course of the case and will be actively involved in developing case strategy, based on the objective, impartial, and independent findings of the expert.

If you believe your family law litigation requires the services of an expert witness, speak to your family lawyer who is the best person to take a call.

Draper Utah Family Attorney Free Consultation

When you need legal help from a family lawyer in Draper Utah, please call Ascent Law LLC for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you. We can help you with Divorce. Child Custody. Child Support. Adoptions. Prenups. Postnups. And Much More.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Can You Go To Jail For Speeding?

Divorce Lawyer Orem Utah

Are Divorce Rates Increasing?/a>

Bankruptcy Lawyer Riverton Utah

What Is Unlawful Business In Utah?

Should I File Chapter 7?

from https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/family-lawyer-draper-utah/

from Criminal Defense Lawyer West Jordan Utah - Blog http://criminaldefenselawyerwestjordanutah.weebly.com/blog/family-lawyer-draper-utah

[advertphoto]

Family Lawyer Draper Utah

In any family law dispute, the probability of winning increases with the skillful presentation of evidence. Don’t fight a family law dispute in court without an experienced Draper Utah family lawyer. Evidence is information presented to a court to support or refute a case or a position in a lawsuit. Evidence may include oral testimony as well as tangible material such as documents, exhibits, and demonstrative aids. Evidence is critical to the outcome of a case, since courts decide verdicts based upon the evidence. However, not all evidence in a case is heard by the court; only evidence that is relevant and admissible plays a role in the outcome of a case.

Expert Witness

An experienced Draper Utah family lawyer will review the facts of your case and determine if you need to use an expert witness. Basically, an expert witness provides an unusual input into a trial. The general rule in a civil trial is that a witness may testify only as to what he or she has seen or heard.

In trial practice, this is an individual who assists trial counsel to prepare an expert witness for trial. In general, since they work with trial counsel preparing the case for trial, what they produce for a client is not subject to discovery. In the federal court system, discovery, the pre-trial process whereby the parties exchange information, specifically applies to expert witnesses. They generally do not apply to those working with the trial counsel, usually including a consulting expert.

While, in some cases, the emotions of the witness may be a subject for testimony, the average witness is not permitted to offer an opinion or to discuss an event which he or she did not actually see. The formation of an opinion, based on the facts in evidence, is traditionally the responsibility of the jury, or of the judge when there is no jury. The use of an expert witness is an exception to this rule. The reasoning for this exception is that some situations are so complex that an expert must be brought in to explain the significance of what is in evidence to a jury However, since the American common-law based system still places ultimate responsibility for the finding of facts with a jury, the expert comes in as another type of witness. That means the jury must evaluate the expert’s testimony, particularly his or her conclusions, as it would that of any other witness. The jury is not required to accept what the expert says as its own conclusion. Therefore, the jury must also be told the facts on which the expert’s opinion is based, as well as the special qualifications that the expert has to be able to draw the conclusion advanced.

How is Someone Qualified as an Expert Witness?

An expert witness is typically presented to the court by one of the parties. The party presenting the expert must satisfy the judge as to the following issues:

• that there is some specialized area of knowledge that will help the jury understand the case before it

• that this area has a reasonable foundation as the subject of activities such as formal research, academic courses, professional education or licensing, trade or professional groups

• that this area has a reasonable foundation as the subject of activities such as formal research, academic courses, professional education or licensing, trade or professional groups

The way this is usually done is by having the witness being offered as an expert directly testify as to these points. Then, the witness can be considered as qualified. At that point, the expert is permitted to testify on the matter before the court. This is done by having the attorney present the expert with specific facts.

The expert can offer his or her opinion as to the meaning of the offered facts. But it is still for the jury (or judge sitting in place of a jury) to determine whether or not to accept the testimony and opinion offered. The process does not end there. The opposing trial counsel has the right to do several things. They include:

• challenging that the area of testimony is a legitimate area for expert testimony

• arguing that the expert presented is not really qualified to draw a conclusion

• asking the expert questions based on different assumptions, to elicit different conclusions

• offering up opposing expert witnesses

An expert witness, at the time of a trial, is actually qualified by the court and must be requalified each and every time that person comes to a subsequent trial for the offering of expert opinion. This qualification by each trial judge takes place regardless of how many previous times the same individual has been court-qualified before or in other jurisdictions. Other witnesses, or experts who may be called as percipient witnesses, can testify without being qualified by the court, but only as to their personal knowledge or observed information related to the matter at hand. The trier of fact (i.e., the judge alone, or the judge and jury) hears preliminary testimony from the proposed expert, elicited by the attorney presenting the case, as to the expert’s knowledge, experience, and training that demonstrate he knows more about his subject or field than does the average layperson. The qualifications of the expert can be challenged by opposing counsel, who will also be allowed to cross-examine the expert on any area of her background, training, education, or experience. The judge then will rule on that witness’s acceptability as an expert in this specific case. This challenge to a witness’s expertise can be in front of the jury or elsewhere.

This is a critical issue to be understood by science-oriented professionals, as most medical, scientific, or engineering professionals would generally be embarrassed or dismayed at calling themselves “experts.” A necessary realization, required by working expert witnesses, is that they do know more about their particular field than just about any other person who may be on a lay jury.

Witness Preparation

Witness preparation is critical in all legal cases. This doesn’t mean the testimony is changed or biased in any way, only that the person giving the testimony is a bit more familiar with what the conditions of the legal playing field will be prior to being asked to score a touchdown. Your Draper Utah family lawyer will prepare your expert witness for testimony. It is not uncommon for some attorneys to take advantage of that intimidation factor when questioning witnesses of their own or when cross-examining those on the other side. Advantage is gained if the attorney can get an opposing witness to say things that are not representative of what he believes to be correct, or things that cause the witness to lose credibility when speaking. The skilled trial lawyer will try to take advantage of any aspect of a witness’s demeanor or lack of conviction when testifying. This is why the more experienced witnesses seem to have an easier time dealing with the rigors of cross-examination.

Just as the nature of an expert witness’s testimony varies, so does the role of the expert witness. In some cases, the expert witness is used to identify problems or defects in the testimony of fact witnesses. In other cases, expert testimony is necessary to meet the burden of proof in order to establish a claim or defense. At times, expert witnesses are used primarily to match the opponent’s experts and to add persuasive strength to the proponent’s claim or defense.

Although experts are most commonly identified with their role as testifying witnesses in deposition or at trials, they also can assist attorneys in the development of the case before trial. Lawyers may hire experts to evaluate the credentials and work of other experts. Experts also may assist lawyers in understanding the technical aspects of a case by reviewing records and documents produced by the parties and by identifying and evaluating issues in a case. In addition, experts can help formulate requests for documents and other information which may become admissible evidence, or they can prepare questions for direct and cross-examination of witnesses. Expert advice may be critical in avoiding a case being dismissed by the court before trial by establishing persuasive theories of causation which should be heard and evaluated by the jury.

Another important function of expert witnesses may be to conduct tests or experiments related to an element involved in the litigation and to prepare demonstrative evidence illustrating their conclusions and the basis for them. To do so, tests and experiments must be painstakingly and extensively planned, documented, and recorded. Experts must be able to defend each step of the testing and experimental process to explain how laboratory conditions relate to the actual facts and circumstances of the case.

Types of Experts

There are two types of experts: consulting and testifying. The distinction between the two is critical because it has an impact on the disclosure of information, thoughts, and processes. Consulting experts provide background knowledge and lend their expertise outside of the courtroom. A consulting expert is used as a resource in complicated and technical areas in which lawyers have little background, often instructing and guiding lawyers on unfamiliar subject matter. A consulting expert will not be called as a witness. Testifying experts, on the other hand, go beyond the support provided by consulting experts and ultimately assist the lawyers trying a case by providing testimony either in court or in depositions.

The distinction between a testifying expert and a consulting expert is important because the identity and opinions of testifying experts must be revealed to the opposing party in advance of trial if properly requested. This means the opposing side will have access to the experts and their records and, therefore, be better able to prepare a response Because of the distinct differences in rules between the two types of experts, the work of consulting experts and that of testifying experts should be kept separate. Successful lawyers strategically balance the use of testifying and consulting experts in order to protect their cases.

The Relationship between Lawyers and Experts

Draper Utah family lawyers expect experts to be confident, persuasive, and impartial, yet not boastful or contentious. They want experts who are firm, with strength of conviction. They need experts who will explain technical, complex matters in a way that the jury fully understands and to which jurors can relate. Lawyers also want experts with appropriate credentials to support narrowly tailored opinions that will serve the lawyers’ objectives at trial. While communication and teaching skills may be more important than credentials for a testifying expert, outstanding expertise and analytical ability may be more important than the ability to communicate and teach for a nontestifying, or consulting, expert. Thus, the lawyer’s expectations will change depending on how the expert will be used. In turn, experts expect lawyers to provide a complete and thorough explanation of the case, the key issues and challenges, and the fundamental standards of proof from a legal perspective. They expect to be provided with all relevant information and documentation to which the lawyer is privy as soon as physically possible.

Lawyers should respect the ethics and professional integrity of the expert and not demand that opinions be slanted in order to bolster the case. Experts need lawyers to clearly describe and explain the interrelationships between their testimonies and those of other experts involved in the case so the experts can prepare to explain conflicts of opinion.

Experts also expect attorneys to educate them about the nature of the legal proceedings and vocabulary, as well as what is expected of the expert at each juncture. In a positive working relationship with an experienced Draper Utah family lawyer, an expert will be treated as a peer over the course of the case and will be actively involved in developing case strategy, based on the objective, impartial, and independent findings of the expert.

If you believe your family law litigation requires the services of an expert witness, speak to your family lawyer who is the best person to take a call.

Draper Utah Family Attorney Free Consultation

When you need legal help from a family lawyer in Draper Utah, please call Ascent Law LLC for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you. We can help you with Divorce. Child Custody. Child Support. Adoptions. Prenups. Postnups. And Much More.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Can You Go To Jail For Speeding?

Divorce Lawyer Orem Utah

Are Divorce Rates Increasing?/a>

Bankruptcy Lawyer Riverton Utah

What Is Unlawful Business In Utah?

Should I File Chapter 7?

Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/family-lawyer-draper-utah/

[michaeljames1221]

Family Lawyer Draper Utah

In any family law dispute, the probability of winning increases with the skillful presentation of evidence. Don’t fight a family law dispute in court without an experienced Draper Utah family lawyer. Evidence is information presented to a court to support or refute a case or a position in a lawsuit. Evidence may include oral testimony as well as tangible material such as documents, exhibits, and demonstrative aids. Evidence is critical to the outcome of a case, since courts decide verdicts based upon the evidence. However, not all evidence in a case is heard by the court; only evidence that is relevant and admissible plays a role in the outcome of a case.

Expert Witness

An experienced Draper Utah family lawyer will review the facts of your case and determine if you need to use an expert witness. Basically, an expert witness provides an unusual input into a trial. The general rule in a civil trial is that a witness may testify only as to what he or she has seen or heard.

In trial practice, this is an individual who assists trial counsel to prepare an expert witness for trial. In general, since they work with trial counsel preparing the case for trial, what they produce for a client is not subject to discovery. In the federal court system, discovery, the pre-trial process whereby the parties exchange information, specifically applies to expert witnesses. They generally do not apply to those working with the trial counsel, usually including a consulting expert.

While, in some cases, the emotions of the witness may be a subject for testimony, the average witness is not permitted to offer an opinion or to discuss an event which he or she did not actually see. The formation of an opinion, based on the facts in evidence, is traditionally the responsibility of the jury, or of the judge when there is no jury. The use of an expert witness is an exception to this rule. The reasoning for this exception is that some situations are so complex that an expert must be brought in to explain the significance of what is in evidence to a jury However, since the American common-law based system still places ultimate responsibility for the finding of facts with a jury, the expert comes in as another type of witness. That means the jury must evaluate the expert’s testimony, particularly his or her conclusions, as it would that of any other witness. The jury is not required to accept what the expert says as its own conclusion. Therefore, the jury must also be told the facts on which the expert’s opinion is based, as well as the special qualifications that the expert has to be able to draw the conclusion advanced.

How is Someone Qualified as an Expert Witness?

An expert witness is typically presented to the court by one of the parties. The party presenting the expert must satisfy the judge as to the following issues:

• that there is some specialized area of knowledge that will help the jury understand the case before it

• that this area has a reasonable foundation as the subject of activities such as formal research, academic courses, professional education or licensing, trade or professional groups

• that this area has a reasonable foundation as the subject of activities such as formal research, academic courses, professional education or licensing, trade or professional groups

The way this is usually done is by having the witness being offered as an expert directly testify as to these points. Then, the witness can be considered as qualified. At that point, the expert is permitted to testify on the matter before the court. This is done by having the attorney present the expert with specific facts.

The expert can offer his or her opinion as to the meaning of the offered facts. But it is still for the jury (or judge sitting in place of a jury) to determine whether or not to accept the testimony and opinion offered. The process does not end there. The opposing trial counsel has the right to do several things. They include:

• challenging that the area of testimony is a legitimate area for expert testimony

• arguing that the expert presented is not really qualified to draw a conclusion

• asking the expert questions based on different assumptions, to elicit different conclusions

• offering up opposing expert witnesses

An expert witness, at the time of a trial, is actually qualified by the court and must be requalified each and every time that person comes to a subsequent trial for the offering of expert opinion. This qualification by each trial judge takes place regardless of how many previous times the same individual has been court-qualified before or in other jurisdictions. Other witnesses, or experts who may be called as percipient witnesses, can testify without being qualified by the court, but only as to their personal knowledge or observed information related to the matter at hand. The trier of fact (i.e., the judge alone, or the judge and jury) hears preliminary testimony from the proposed expert, elicited by the attorney presenting the case, as to the expert’s knowledge, experience, and training that demonstrate he knows more about his subject or field than does the average layperson. The qualifications of the expert can be challenged by opposing counsel, who will also be allowed to cross-examine the expert on any area of her background, training, education, or experience. The judge then will rule on that witness’s acceptability as an expert in this specific case. This challenge to a witness’s expertise can be in front of the jury or elsewhere.

This is a critical issue to be understood by science-oriented professionals, as most medical, scientific, or engineering professionals would generally be embarrassed or dismayed at calling themselves “experts.” A necessary realization, required by working expert witnesses, is that they do know more about their particular field than just about any other person who may be on a lay jury.

Witness Preparation

Witness preparation is critical in all legal cases. This doesn’t mean the testimony is changed or biased in any way, only that the person giving the testimony is a bit more familiar with what the conditions of the legal playing field will be prior to being asked to score a touchdown. Your Draper Utah family lawyer will prepare your expert witness for testimony. It is not uncommon for some attorneys to take advantage of that intimidation factor when questioning witnesses of their own or when cross-examining those on the other side. Advantage is gained if the attorney can get an opposing witness to say things that are not representative of what he believes to be correct, or things that cause the witness to lose credibility when speaking. The skilled trial lawyer will try to take advantage of any aspect of a witness’s demeanor or lack of conviction when testifying. This is why the more experienced witnesses seem to have an easier time dealing with the rigors of cross-examination.

Just as the nature of an expert witness’s testimony varies, so does the role of the expert witness. In some cases, the expert witness is used to identify problems or defects in the testimony of fact witnesses. In other cases, expert testimony is necessary to meet the burden of proof in order to establish a claim or defense. At times, expert witnesses are used primarily to match the opponent’s experts and to add persuasive strength to the proponent’s claim or defense.

Although experts are most commonly identified with their role as testifying witnesses in deposition or at trials, they also can assist attorneys in the development of the case before trial. Lawyers may hire experts to evaluate the credentials and work of other experts. Experts also may assist lawyers in understanding the technical aspects of a case by reviewing records and documents produced by the parties and by identifying and evaluating issues in a case. In addition, experts can help formulate requests for documents and other information which may become admissible evidence, or they can prepare questions for direct and cross-examination of witnesses. Expert advice may be critical in avoiding a case being dismissed by the court before trial by establishing persuasive theories of causation which should be heard and evaluated by the jury.

Another important function of expert witnesses may be to conduct tests or experiments related to an element involved in the litigation and to prepare demonstrative evidence illustrating their conclusions and the basis for them. To do so, tests and experiments must be painstakingly and extensively planned, documented, and recorded. Experts must be able to defend each step of the testing and experimental process to explain how laboratory conditions relate to the actual facts and circumstances of the case.

Types of Experts

There are two types of experts: consulting and testifying. The distinction between the two is critical because it has an impact on the disclosure of information, thoughts, and processes. Consulting experts provide background knowledge and lend their expertise outside of the courtroom. A consulting expert is used as a resource in complicated and technical areas in which lawyers have little background, often instructing and guiding lawyers on unfamiliar subject matter. A consulting expert will not be called as a witness. Testifying experts, on the other hand, go beyond the support provided by consulting experts and ultimately assist the lawyers trying a case by providing testimony either in court or in depositions.

The distinction between a testifying expert and a consulting expert is important because the identity and opinions of testifying experts must be revealed to the opposing party in advance of trial if properly requested. This means the opposing side will have access to the experts and their records and, therefore, be better able to prepare a response Because of the distinct differences in rules between the two types of experts, the work of consulting experts and that of testifying experts should be kept separate. Successful lawyers strategically balance the use of testifying and consulting experts in order to protect their cases.

The Relationship between Lawyers and Experts

Draper Utah family lawyers expect experts to be confident, persuasive, and impartial, yet not boastful or contentious. They want experts who are firm, with strength of conviction. They need experts who will explain technical, complex matters in a way that the jury fully understands and to which jurors can relate. Lawyers also want experts with appropriate credentials to support narrowly tailored opinions that will serve the lawyers’ objectives at trial. While communication and teaching skills may be more important than credentials for a testifying expert, outstanding expertise and analytical ability may be more important than the ability to communicate and teach for a nontestifying, or consulting, expert. Thus, the lawyer’s expectations will change depending on how the expert will be used. In turn, experts expect lawyers to provide a complete and thorough explanation of the case, the key issues and challenges, and the fundamental standards of proof from a legal perspective. They expect to be provided with all relevant information and documentation to which the lawyer is privy as soon as physically possible.

Lawyers should respect the ethics and professional integrity of the expert and not demand that opinions be slanted in order to bolster the case. Experts need lawyers to clearly describe and explain the interrelationships between their testimonies and those of other experts involved in the case so the experts can prepare to explain conflicts of opinion.

Experts also expect attorneys to educate them about the nature of the legal proceedings and vocabulary, as well as what is expected of the expert at each juncture. In a positive working relationship with an experienced Draper Utah family lawyer, an expert will be treated as a peer over the course of the case and will be actively involved in developing case strategy, based on the objective, impartial, and independent findings of the expert.

If you believe your family law litigation requires the services of an expert witness, speak to your family lawyer who is the best person to take a call.

Draper Utah Family Attorney Free Consultation

When you need legal help from a family lawyer in Draper Utah, please call Ascent Law LLC for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you. We can help you with Divorce. Child Custody. Child Support. Adoptions. Prenups. Postnups. And Much More.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Can You Go To Jail For Speeding?

Divorce Lawyer Orem Utah

Are Divorce Rates Increasing?/a>

Bankruptcy Lawyer Riverton Utah

What Is Unlawful Business In Utah?

Should I File Chapter 7?

from Michael Anderson https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/family-lawyer-draper-utah/

from Criminal Defense Lawyer West Jordan Utah https://criminaldefenselawyerwestjordanutah.wordpress.com/2020/01/26/family-lawyer-draper-utah/

[aretia]

Family Lawyer Draper Utah

In any family law dispute, the probability of winning increases with the skillful presentation of evidence. Don’t fight a family law dispute in court without an experienced Draper Utah family lawyer. Evidence is information presented to a court to support or refute a case or a position in a lawsuit. Evidence may include oral testimony as well as tangible material such as documents, exhibits, and demonstrative aids. Evidence is critical to the outcome of a case, since courts decide verdicts based upon the evidence. However, not all evidence in a case is heard by the court; only evidence that is relevant and admissible plays a role in the outcome of a case.

Expert Witness

An experienced Draper Utah family lawyer will review the facts of your case and determine if you need to use an expert witness. Basically, an expert witness provides an unusual input into a trial. The general rule in a civil trial is that a witness may testify only as to what he or she has seen or heard.

In trial practice, this is an individual who assists trial counsel to prepare an expert witness for trial. In general, since they work with trial counsel preparing the case for trial, what they produce for a client is not subject to discovery. In the federal court system, discovery, the pre-trial process whereby the parties exchange information, specifically applies to expert witnesses. They generally do not apply to those working with the trial counsel, usually including a consulting expert.

While, in some cases, the emotions of the witness may be a subject for testimony, the average witness is not permitted to offer an opinion or to discuss an event which he or she did not actually see. The formation of an opinion, based on the facts in evidence, is traditionally the responsibility of the jury, or of the judge when there is no jury. The use of an expert witness is an exception to this rule. The reasoning for this exception is that some situations are so complex that an expert must be brought in to explain the significance of what is in evidence to a jury However, since the American common-law based system still places ultimate responsibility for the finding of facts with a jury, the expert comes in as another type of witness. That means the jury must evaluate the expert’s testimony, particularly his or her conclusions, as it would that of any other witness. The jury is not required to accept what the expert says as its own conclusion. Therefore, the jury must also be told the facts on which the expert’s opinion is based, as well as the special qualifications that the expert has to be able to draw the conclusion advanced.

How is Someone Qualified as an Expert Witness?

An expert witness is typically presented to the court by one of the parties. The party presenting the expert must satisfy the judge as to the following issues:

• that there is some specialized area of knowledge that will help the jury understand the case before it

• that this area has a reasonable foundation as the subject of activities such as formal research, academic courses, professional education or licensing, trade or professional groups

• that this area has a reasonable foundation as the subject of activities such as formal research, academic courses, professional education or licensing, trade or professional groups

The way this is usually done is by having the witness being offered as an expert directly testify as to these points. Then, the witness can be considered as qualified. At that point, the expert is permitted to testify on the matter before the court. This is done by having the attorney present the expert with specific facts.

The expert can offer his or her opinion as to the meaning of the offered facts. But it is still for the jury (or judge sitting in place of a jury) to determine whether or not to accept the testimony and opinion offered. The process does not end there. The opposing trial counsel has the right to do several things. They include:

• challenging that the area of testimony is a legitimate area for expert testimony

• arguing that the expert presented is not really qualified to draw a conclusion

• asking the expert questions based on different assumptions, to elicit different conclusions

• offering up opposing expert witnesses

An expert witness, at the time of a trial, is actually qualified by the court and must be requalified each and every time that person comes to a subsequent trial for the offering of expert opinion. This qualification by each trial judge takes place regardless of how many previous times the same individual has been court-qualified before or in other jurisdictions. Other witnesses, or experts who may be called as percipient witnesses, can testify without being qualified by the court, but only as to their personal knowledge or observed information related to the matter at hand. The trier of fact (i.e., the judge alone, or the judge and jury) hears preliminary testimony from the proposed expert, elicited by the attorney presenting the case, as to the expert’s knowledge, experience, and training that demonstrate he knows more about his subject or field than does the average layperson. The qualifications of the expert can be challenged by opposing counsel, who will also be allowed to cross-examine the expert on any area of her background, training, education, or experience. The judge then will rule on that witness’s acceptability as an expert in this specific case. This challenge to a witness’s expertise can be in front of the jury or elsewhere.

This is a critical issue to be understood by science-oriented professionals, as most medical, scientific, or engineering professionals would generally be embarrassed or dismayed at calling themselves “experts.” A necessary realization, required by working expert witnesses, is that they do know more about their particular field than just about any other person who may be on a lay jury.

Witness Preparation

Witness preparation is critical in all legal cases. This doesn’t mean the testimony is changed or biased in any way, only that the person giving the testimony is a bit more familiar with what the conditions of the legal playing field will be prior to being asked to score a touchdown. Your Draper Utah family lawyer will prepare your expert witness for testimony. It is not uncommon for some attorneys to take advantage of that intimidation factor when questioning witnesses of their own or when cross-examining those on the other side. Advantage is gained if the attorney can get an opposing witness to say things that are not representative of what he believes to be correct, or things that cause the witness to lose credibility when speaking. The skilled trial lawyer will try to take advantage of any aspect of a witness’s demeanor or lack of conviction when testifying. This is why the more experienced witnesses seem to have an easier time dealing with the rigors of cross-examination.

Just as the nature of an expert witness’s testimony varies, so does the role of the expert witness. In some cases, the expert witness is used to identify problems or defects in the testimony of fact witnesses. In other cases, expert testimony is necessary to meet the burden of proof in order to establish a claim or defense. At times, expert witnesses are used primarily to match the opponent’s experts and to add persuasive strength to the proponent’s claim or defense.

Although experts are most commonly identified with their role as testifying witnesses in deposition or at trials, they also can assist attorneys in the development of the case before trial. Lawyers may hire experts to evaluate the credentials and work of other experts. Experts also may assist lawyers in understanding the technical aspects of a case by reviewing records and documents produced by the parties and by identifying and evaluating issues in a case. In addition, experts can help formulate requests for documents and other information which may become admissible evidence, or they can prepare questions for direct and cross-examination of witnesses. Expert advice may be critical in avoiding a case being dismissed by the court before trial by establishing persuasive theories of causation which should be heard and evaluated by the jury.

Another important function of expert witnesses may be to conduct tests or experiments related to an element involved in the litigation and to prepare demonstrative evidence illustrating their conclusions and the basis for them. To do so, tests and experiments must be painstakingly and extensively planned, documented, and recorded. Experts must be able to defend each step of the testing and experimental process to explain how laboratory conditions relate to the actual facts and circumstances of the case.

Types of Experts

There are two types of experts: consulting and testifying. The distinction between the two is critical because it has an impact on the disclosure of information, thoughts, and processes. Consulting experts provide background knowledge and lend their expertise outside of the courtroom. A consulting expert is used as a resource in complicated and technical areas in which lawyers have little background, often instructing and guiding lawyers on unfamiliar subject matter. A consulting expert will not be called as a witness. Testifying experts, on the other hand, go beyond the support provided by consulting experts and ultimately assist the lawyers trying a case by providing testimony either in court or in depositions.

The distinction between a testifying expert and a consulting expert is important because the identity and opinions of testifying experts must be revealed to the opposing party in advance of trial if properly requested. This means the opposing side will have access to the experts and their records and, therefore, be better able to prepare a response Because of the distinct differences in rules between the two types of experts, the work of consulting experts and that of testifying experts should be kept separate. Successful lawyers strategically balance the use of testifying and consulting experts in order to protect their cases.

The Relationship between Lawyers and Experts

Draper Utah family lawyers expect experts to be confident, persuasive, and impartial, yet not boastful or contentious. They want experts who are firm, with strength of conviction. They need experts who will explain technical, complex matters in a way that the jury fully understands and to which jurors can relate. Lawyers also want experts with appropriate credentials to support narrowly tailored opinions that will serve the lawyers’ objectives at trial. While communication and teaching skills may be more important than credentials for a testifying expert, outstanding expertise and analytical ability may be more important than the ability to communicate and teach for a nontestifying, or consulting, expert. Thus, the lawyer’s expectations will change depending on how the expert will be used. In turn, experts expect lawyers to provide a complete and thorough explanation of the case, the key issues and challenges, and the fundamental standards of proof from a legal perspective. They expect to be provided with all relevant information and documentation to which the lawyer is privy as soon as physically possible.

Lawyers should respect the ethics and professional integrity of the expert and not demand that opinions be slanted in order to bolster the case. Experts need lawyers to clearly describe and explain the interrelationships between their testimonies and those of other experts involved in the case so the experts can prepare to explain conflicts of opinion.

Experts also expect attorneys to educate them about the nature of the legal proceedings and vocabulary, as well as what is expected of the expert at each juncture. In a positive working relationship with an experienced Draper Utah family lawyer, an expert will be treated as a peer over the course of the case and will be actively involved in developing case strategy, based on the objective, impartial, and independent findings of the expert.

If you believe your family law litigation requires the services of an expert witness, speak to your family lawyer who is the best person to take a call.

Draper Utah Family Attorney Free Consultation

When you need legal help from a family lawyer in Draper Utah, please call Ascent Law LLC for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you. We can help you with Divorce. Child Custody. Child Support. Adoptions. Prenups. Postnups. And Much More.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Can You Go To Jail For Speeding?

Divorce Lawyer Orem Utah

Are Divorce Rates Increasing?/a>

Bankruptcy Lawyer Riverton Utah

What Is Unlawful Business In Utah?

Should I File Chapter 7?

Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/family-lawyer-draper-utah/

[divorcelawyergunnisonutah]

Family Lawyer Draper Utah

In any family law dispute, the probability of winning increases with the skillful presentation of evidence. Don’t fight a family law dispute in court without an experienced Draper Utah family lawyer. Evidence is information presented to a court to support or refute a case or a position in a lawsuit. Evidence may include oral testimony as well as tangible material such as documents, exhibits, and demonstrative aids. Evidence is critical to the outcome of a case, since courts decide verdicts based upon the evidence. However, not all evidence in a case is heard by the court; only evidence that is relevant and admissible plays a role in the outcome of a case.

Expert Witness

An experienced Draper Utah family lawyer will review the facts of your case and determine if you need to use an expert witness. Basically, an expert witness provides an unusual input into a trial. The general rule in a civil trial is that a witness may testify only as to what he or she has seen or heard.

In trial practice, this is an individual who assists trial counsel to prepare an expert witness for trial. In general, since they work with trial counsel preparing the case for trial, what they produce for a client is not subject to discovery. In the federal court system, discovery, the pre-trial process whereby the parties exchange information, specifically applies to expert witnesses. They generally do not apply to those working with the trial counsel, usually including a consulting expert.

While, in some cases, the emotions of the witness may be a subject for testimony, the average witness is not permitted to offer an opinion or to discuss an event which he or she did not actually see. The formation of an opinion, based on the facts in evidence, is traditionally the responsibility of the jury, or of the judge when there is no jury. The use of an expert witness is an exception to this rule. The reasoning for this exception is that some situations are so complex that an expert must be brought in to explain the significance of what is in evidence to a jury However, since the American common-law based system still places ultimate responsibility for the finding of facts with a jury, the expert comes in as another type of witness. That means the jury must evaluate the expert’s testimony, particularly his or her conclusions, as it would that of any other witness. The jury is not required to accept what the expert says as its own conclusion. Therefore, the jury must also be told the facts on which the expert’s opinion is based, as well as the special qualifications that the expert has to be able to draw the conclusion advanced.

How is Someone Qualified as an Expert Witness?

An expert witness is typically presented to the court by one of the parties. The party presenting the expert must satisfy the judge as to the following issues:

• that there is some specialized area of knowledge that will help the jury understand the case before it

• that this area has a reasonable foundation as the subject of activities such as formal research, academic courses, professional education or licensing, trade or professional groups

• that this area has a reasonable foundation as the subject of activities such as formal research, academic courses, professional education or licensing, trade or professional groups

The way this is usually done is by having the witness being offered as an expert directly testify as to these points. Then, the witness can be considered as qualified. At that point, the expert is permitted to testify on the matter before the court. This is done by having the attorney present the expert with specific facts.

The expert can offer his or her opinion as to the meaning of the offered facts. But it is still for the jury (or judge sitting in place of a jury) to determine whether or not to accept the testimony and opinion offered. The process does not end there. The opposing trial counsel has the right to do several things. They include:

• challenging that the area of testimony is a legitimate area for expert testimony

• arguing that the expert presented is not really qualified to draw a conclusion

• asking the expert questions based on different assumptions, to elicit different conclusions

• offering up opposing expert witnesses

An expert witness, at the time of a trial, is actually qualified by the court and must be requalified each and every time that person comes to a subsequent trial for the offering of expert opinion. This qualification by each trial judge takes place regardless of how many previous times the same individual has been court-qualified before or in other jurisdictions. Other witnesses, or experts who may be called as percipient witnesses, can testify without being qualified by the court, but only as to their personal knowledge or observed information related to the matter at hand. The trier of fact (i.e., the judge alone, or the judge and jury) hears preliminary testimony from the proposed expert, elicited by the attorney presenting the case, as to the expert’s knowledge, experience, and training that demonstrate he knows more about his subject or field than does the average layperson. The qualifications of the expert can be challenged by opposing counsel, who will also be allowed to cross-examine the expert on any area of her background, training, education, or experience. The judge then will rule on that witness’s acceptability as an expert in this specific case. This challenge to a witness’s expertise can be in front of the jury or elsewhere.

This is a critical issue to be understood by science-oriented professionals, as most medical, scientific, or engineering professionals would generally be embarrassed or dismayed at calling themselves “experts.” A necessary realization, required by working expert witnesses, is that they do know more about their particular field than just about any other person who may be on a lay jury.

Witness Preparation

Witness preparation is critical in all legal cases. This doesn’t mean the testimony is changed or biased in any way, only that the person giving the testimony is a bit more familiar with what the conditions of the legal playing field will be prior to being asked to score a touchdown. Your Draper Utah family lawyer will prepare your expert witness for testimony. It is not uncommon for some attorneys to take advantage of that intimidation factor when questioning witnesses of their own or when cross-examining those on the other side. Advantage is gained if the attorney can get an opposing witness to say things that are not representative of what he believes to be correct, or things that cause the witness to lose credibility when speaking. The skilled trial lawyer will try to take advantage of any aspect of a witness’s demeanor or lack of conviction when testifying. This is why the more experienced witnesses seem to have an easier time dealing with the rigors of cross-examination.

Just as the nature of an expert witness’s testimony varies, so does the role of the expert witness. In some cases, the expert witness is used to identify problems or defects in the testimony of fact witnesses. In other cases, expert testimony is necessary to meet the burden of proof in order to establish a claim or defense. At times, expert witnesses are used primarily to match the opponent’s experts and to add persuasive strength to the proponent’s claim or defense.

Although experts are most commonly identified with their role as testifying witnesses in deposition or at trials, they also can assist attorneys in the development of the case before trial. Lawyers may hire experts to evaluate the credentials and work of other experts. Experts also may assist lawyers in understanding the technical aspects of a case by reviewing records and documents produced by the parties and by identifying and evaluating issues in a case. In addition, experts can help formulate requests for documents and other information which may become admissible evidence, or they can prepare questions for direct and cross-examination of witnesses. Expert advice may be critical in avoiding a case being dismissed by the court before trial by establishing persuasive theories of causation which should be heard and evaluated by the jury.

Another important function of expert witnesses may be to conduct tests or experiments related to an element involved in the litigation and to prepare demonstrative evidence illustrating their conclusions and the basis for them. To do so, tests and experiments must be painstakingly and extensively planned, documented, and recorded. Experts must be able to defend each step of the testing and experimental process to explain how laboratory conditions relate to the actual facts and circumstances of the case.

Types of Experts

There are two types of experts: consulting and testifying. The distinction between the two is critical because it has an impact on the disclosure of information, thoughts, and processes. Consulting experts provide background knowledge and lend their expertise outside of the courtroom. A consulting expert is used as a resource in complicated and technical areas in which lawyers have little background, often instructing and guiding lawyers on unfamiliar subject matter. A consulting expert will not be called as a witness. Testifying experts, on the other hand, go beyond the support provided by consulting experts and ultimately assist the lawyers trying a case by providing testimony either in court or in depositions.

The distinction between a testifying expert and a consulting expert is important because the identity and opinions of testifying experts must be revealed to the opposing party in advance of trial if properly requested. This means the opposing side will have access to the experts and their records and, therefore, be better able to prepare a response Because of the distinct differences in rules between the two types of experts, the work of consulting experts and that of testifying experts should be kept separate. Successful lawyers strategically balance the use of testifying and consulting experts in order to protect their cases.

The Relationship between Lawyers and Experts

Draper Utah family lawyers expect experts to be confident, persuasive, and impartial, yet not boastful or contentious. They want experts who are firm, with strength of conviction. They need experts who will explain technical, complex matters in a way that the jury fully understands and to which jurors can relate. Lawyers also want experts with appropriate credentials to support narrowly tailored opinions that will serve the lawyers’ objectives at trial. While communication and teaching skills may be more important than credentials for a testifying expert, outstanding expertise and analytical ability may be more important than the ability to communicate and teach for a nontestifying, or consulting, expert. Thus, the lawyer’s expectations will change depending on how the expert will be used. In turn, experts expect lawyers to provide a complete and thorough explanation of the case, the key issues and challenges, and the fundamental standards of proof from a legal perspective. They expect to be provided with all relevant information and documentation to which the lawyer is privy as soon as physically possible.

Lawyers should respect the ethics and professional integrity of the expert and not demand that opinions be slanted in order to bolster the case. Experts need lawyers to clearly describe and explain the interrelationships between their testimonies and those of other experts involved in the case so the experts can prepare to explain conflicts of opinion.

Experts also expect attorneys to educate them about the nature of the legal proceedings and vocabulary, as well as what is expected of the expert at each juncture. In a positive working relationship with an experienced Draper Utah family lawyer, an expert will be treated as a peer over the course of the case and will be actively involved in developing case strategy, based on the objective, impartial, and independent findings of the expert.

If you believe your family law litigation requires the services of an expert witness, speak to your family lawyer who is the best person to take a call.

Draper Utah Family Attorney Free Consultation

When you need legal help from a family lawyer in Draper Utah, please call Ascent Law LLC for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you. We can help you with Divorce. Child Custody. Child Support. Adoptions. Prenups. Postnups. And Much More.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Can You Go To Jail For Speeding?

Divorce Lawyer Orem Utah

Are Divorce Rates Increasing?/a>

Bankruptcy Lawyer Riverton Utah

What Is Unlawful Business In Utah?

Should I File Chapter 7?

from Michael Anderson https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/family-lawyer-draper-utah/