So attorneys shouldn’t be able to dredge up a witness’s past to question their credibility, character, or reliability?
4 Likes
maybe in some cases, but they clearly abuse this and make false equivalence between the witness’s past and the issue at hand.
How is it a false equivalence? What’s being called into question is her general credibility as a witness (and, to a lesser degree, as the responsible IT security expert Giuliani is presenting her to be). It’s opposing counsel’s job to present the court with a serious past instance of her lying to authorities as part of attention-seeking behaviour.
5 Likes
And opposing counsel should object to any such irrelevant lines of questioning.
5 Likes
But sadly, this was just a panel, not a court of law (?). I think they had to point that out to Rudy a few times, IIRC?
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
