Support the Guide on Patron!

Be sure to share your comments in the Class Participation section below -- that's the best part! Also, you can use the arrows on your keyboard to flip through pages quickly.

Use this link to buy the books, and a portion of the proceeds goes to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital

Join the conversation!
There are now 7 comments... what are your thoughts?
  1. Gregory T. Bogosian says

    When a defense attorney shouts “hold it!” I cannot help but think of Phoenix Wright.

  2. Taleweaver says

    This is actually quite simple. The witness looks for a sign of confirmation from the police officer that he’s making the “right” choice (i.e. fingering the guy the police think is the perp). The attorney cannot allow this to stand uncontested. Plus, he’s seeing all photos of the array at the same time, instead of one after the other, which would be better.

    See, I paid attention.

  3. AND the photo lineup was chosen based on the guy they picked up, not the witness’ description.

    • Well, the eyewitness had already identified the guy they caught as “the one who did it”, so it was the witness’s description they based the lineup on.

      • The guy identified the guy they caught before they even put him in a photo array. I’d call his eyewitness into question right there.

      • Not quite. The above comic says, “I used our lineup software to select five filler photos that [B][I]looked like the suspect[/I][/B].” Not the original description. This is one of the problems with lineups discussed earlier.

  4. Kereth Midknight says

    I think the real issue we need to acknowledge here is that the defence interrupted the flashback so loudly he knocked over the witness’s tray and spilled the food all over. If that’s not tampering with the evidence, I don’t know what is.

Class Participation

Your email address will not be published.

Support the Guide on Patron!