Legal Writing Group Exercise Group 7 1F

Carillo, John Joshua

Dysico, Raychelle
Guzman, Abby
Realubin, Roseanne
Sanchez, Honeylette

The ruling by the trial judge was prejudicial error because it cut off cross-examination of the vital
issues.

1. The trial judge erred in his ruling because the cross-examination of vital issues was cut.

---

Defense counsel objected to the question. She argued that it called for hearsay. The court
overruled the objection. The witness was allowed to answer.

2. Defense objected to the question and called it hearsay. But, the court overruled the
objection and allowed the witness to answer.

---

The conclusion which has been reached by my client is that if there is a continuation of your
insistence on this position, the termination of the contract will be taken into serious
consideration by her.

3. My client will consider terminating the contract if you insist on this position.

--

The sole eyewitness, having seen the accident from the window of an apartment which was on
the seventh floor of a building located one – half block in a northerly direction from the
intersection, testified that she did not see which car made the first entry into the intersection.

4. The sole witness testified that she did not see which car entered the intersection first.