Quote:
Originally Posted by inmyrav
He just needs to testify to SHIFT THE BURDEN OF PROOF. Read. It means they can cross examine and present evidence, BUT the burden of proof is automatically now on the plantiff when he testifies. If my source is correct ...
His testimony is the totality of his direct and cross examination. Whether or not he shifts the burden to the defense depends on his credibility and whether his testimony is believable. Merely claiming he didn't cheat on direct examination won't be viewed in a vacuum.
Here is an over simplified example:
Direct Examination:
Plaintiff's Counsel: Why did you file this lawsuit?
Plaintiff: I was falsely accused of cheating. I never cheated.
Cross Examination:
Defendant's Counsel: Yes or no, do a majority of your opponents now think you're a cheater?
Plaintiff: Yes.
Defendant's Counsel: Yes or no, didn't you once admit to cheating at cards?
Plaintiff: Yes.
You're on the jury. Did plaintiff prove he wasn't a cheater? Yes, no, or you're not sure?
Plaintiff may have cheated at another occasion at another time not part of the current lawsuit and when he was a teenager. But he claimed he never cheated under direct examination and had to admit both that he has a reputation of being a cheater and that he once admitted to being a cheater. He may be innocent now, but his credibility has been seriously put in doubt. Once a cheater always a cheater? Don't his peers know him best? Doesn't the Plaintiff have a motive to lie now if guilty?
As an aside. With respect to the Postle case, in one of the videos, Postle's brother told a story of how Postle rigged a gambling game and cheated his friends or others when they were kids. This can be used to attack his credibility if he claims innocence of being a cheater. Sometimes a seemingly innocent statement or anecdote can open the flood gates.
Another aside. Notice how the first question defendant's counsel asked is a double edged sword. An answer of yes can be used to hurt plaintiff's credibility. An answer of no can be used to mitigate damages. Damn lawyers, lol.
Last edited by George Rice; 10-26-2020 at 01:00 PM.