3 ms·
A Second Chance
- j605 6y agoCan the URL be cleaned up :)
- dougmwne 6y agoA nice read and a good reminder that presentation and knowing your audience counts for a lot, in court as well as the workplace. It's not the facts or your deliverables, but the way in which you sell them to others.
- j605 6y agoIn this case,I felt it was only needed because of having jury trials. I had the same takeaway that is useful in other places as you. For example, my boss presented a feature that I had worked on better than how I would have done it.
- sulam 6y agoA judge is a jury of one. They may be better trained to rely on evidence, but they are clearly also human and affected by other factors. For evidence of this, I only need to refer to the well-cited study showing that parole judges were significantly more lenient at the start of the day and after their lunch break.
- ThrowawayR2 6y agoWasn't that debunked a while ago? https://www.pnas.org/content/108/42/E833.long https://www.pnas.org/content/108/42/E833.long
- sulam 6y agoInteresting, I haven't read that. However, I really think it's a stretch to assume that judge's are immune to presentation style.
- 082349872349872 6y agoIMX (albeit very limited) in code[1] jurisdictions, judges do most of their work by correspondence. They direct the proceedings in writing, and the lawyers respond in writing. Bonus common law track: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBM82Ju2kJU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBM82Ju2kJU [1] compare "what have the Romans ever done for us?"
- ikeboy 6y agoThe article makes it sound like the lawyer botched the first trial, which is mildly surprising given that it was paid for by insurance with a strong motive to win. You should know before trial exactly how a witness will answer all questions. It doesn't sound like there were any surprise questions, they just didn't prepare the witness well enough for the first trial.