What Judges Want: a reply - if the court pleases.

You can bet your life on it. At every legal conference there will be a Judge’s presentation of a particular kind. Sometimes the titles mislead. Affective Advocacy sounds innocuous enough, a nice little post-lunch soporific easing one towards the evening’s networking opportunities. Other titles, The View from the Bench, at least hint at their purpose.

Sometimes it can be slow and painful.

Still others are like a merciful kill shot between the eyes of a wounded beast: What Judges Want is unequivocal.

         Whatever the title don’t be fooled, the presentation is not so much an opportunity for the bench to guide and nurture, as it is a chance to warn, threaten and even punish.

Cross-examination: It's the climax that counts. A personal perspective.

In recent posts we've looked at the 10 commandments of cross-examination and asked is cross-examination an engine of truth or something to do with goats? Now, I want to give you a personal perspective. It's a good time for this because I've just completed several trials and the cross is fresh in my mind.

Cross-examination: an engine of truth or a man with a goat?

As a student barrister I attended a presentation on cross-examination. The presenter asked 'what is the purpose of cross-examination?' We were being assessed for participation so I uncharacteristically raised my hand and answered 'to elicit the truth.'

The presenter paused, raised a finger and said 'we'll return to you later'. He moved on to other more acceptable answers, leaving me feeling like an amorous farmhand caught with a goat.

Cross-examination: Sexy or What!

Cross-examination is the sexiest part of any trial. Along with the impassioned closing address it is the very stuff of court room drama. Think of Kaffee's cross-examination of Colonel Jessup in A Few Good Men. Or Vincent Gambini's brilliant magic grits cross-examination in My Cousin Vinny. Or the classic, authoritative and measured testing of the lying rape victim in To Kill a Mocking Bird.

Barrister or Barista?

Barristers are supposed to like words. After all, without them we’d have no excuse to wear our gowns and wigs in public. So you might be surprised to learn that some counsel dislike words, or practice as if they do. Clogging submissions with such dross and confuscation as to make them meaningless.

Even barristers who like words can get things wrong. Trials happen in real time and sometimes shit happens. (This phrase has Prime Ministerial approval in Australia)