Prudente,

Gabriel Alessandro N.
2019400206

Real Lawyer Reacts to Suits, Law & Order, and L.A. Law

In the first video, it focuses more on legal or trial techniques. In this video, the scenes
focus more on the examination presentation of the witness presentation of the case.

In the first scene, it involves an employee with a neurological disorder whose
employment was terminated. For the direct examination, it can be said that it is a very good
example of how to conduct a direct examination. His tone was relaxed, he smoothly laid the
foundation on why the employee was let go for health reasons, and his questioning allows
the witness to tell his story without leading him to the answer as well as build the character
of the witness for the jury to consider. On the other hand, the opposing lawyer provides for
an example of what not to do during a cross-examination. Here, the lawyer conducting the
cross-examination asked the witness a question that she already knows the answer to, that
he is or was taking medication. And then, she asked an open-ended question that allowed the
witness to monologue about his experiences about Tourette’s, thus, making the jury more
empathetic to his cause, and thereby, hurting her case.

In the next scene (Law & Order), gives us an excellent idea of the use of illustration to
strengthen your argument. Here, the lawyer used a beaker full of pills so that the jury can
have an idea of the number of pills taken by the injured party. She then continues to make an
analogy of the pills with a bullet that can go off any time. With these, she was able to create
the idea within the minds of the jury that the pills are dangerous and could harm those who
take them. Thus, tilting the outcome of the case in their favor. On the other hand, based on
the prosecution’s closing statement, it would seem like they used character evidence against
the accused, which, in our jurisdiction, is generally not allowed for the prosecution.

The last scene (Suits). There were objectionable answers given by the witness for
being hearsay or lack of proper foundation for not showing how he obtained personal
knowledge of the matters he was testifying to. Aside from that, the impropriety of the lawyer
walking over to the witness unannounced which could result in her being disciplined by the
judge. In our jurisdiction, it has always been a practice to first ask the permission of the judge
before a lawyer do something during the trial.