To Mark Zuckerberg: "So, how do you sustain a business model in which users don’t pay for your service?"
To George Floyd witness: "So you had something called a mobile device right? And a mobile device is capable of taking pictures right? And you used the mobile device to use that capability right? And your eyes were able to see things besides the phone right?"
No shit Sherlock, have you never used Facebook and seen the glaring ads? A 15-year old could figure that out. Oh and yeah phones take pictures and people have eyes that can move. Just play the damn video. Yes, play the video, not "publish the exhibit". They really do sound pretty stupid to me.
Old prosecutor's/attorney's trick. Never ask a question you don't already know the answer to. You're there to tease out the record in your favor, and try to control the narrative through leading questions.
The legal system is not about truth. It's about corraling 12 fish out of water to your way of seeing things. Throw the judges/lawyers a curveball with something like jury nullification and see how quick things get nasty.
Attorneys for parties ina case are not witnesses, can’t be cross-examined, and are not permitted to just introduce fact claims into evidence themselves. They have to ask questions of witnesses, who are the subject to cross examination.
There a very good reasons for it even if it isn’t maximally entertaining viewing.
I'm sure everyone would agree that people have eyes and phones and that a phone can take pictures. Why is that a fact claim? Just show the pictures. And then ask real questions, like "what do you see" "oh look someone's knee on someone's neck". I hate inefficiency.
> I'm sure everyone would agree that people have eyes and phones and that a phone can take pictures. Why is that a fact claim? Just show the pictures.
Every single one of those questions is establishing a fact in the record without which the opposing counsel would potentially have grounds to object to the presentation of the pictures. You can’t just show pictures without an explanation through facts themselves introduced as evidence, whether by testimony or otherwise, unless freely stipulated by the opposing party, of what the evidence is, where it came from, and why it is relevant.
Again, yeah, it makes crappy theater. The rules are about due process for the parties in a case, not keeping the proceedings engaging for an audience.
To George Floyd witness: "So you had something called a mobile device right? And a mobile device is capable of taking pictures right? And you used the mobile device to use that capability right? And your eyes were able to see things besides the phone right?"
No shit Sherlock, have you never used Facebook and seen the glaring ads? A 15-year old could figure that out. Oh and yeah phones take pictures and people have eyes that can move. Just play the damn video. Yes, play the video, not "publish the exhibit". They really do sound pretty stupid to me.