The ‘phrase that pays!’ here is Beyond the Scope, or simply scope,
“Beyond the Scope” is an objection that an attorney can use at trial or in a hearing when the opposing attorney is examining a witness (other than on direct examination) in a way that goes into matters that were not asked about in the immediately preceding examination.
If it wasn’t brought up in the direct examination it, generally, cannot be brought up in the cross examination.
And boy is it fun watching attorneys argue with the judge about whether a question crosses that line or if a direct question opened the door to the line of inquiry!
“You opened the door, Ms Melnick!” is one of the top ten dramatic rulings as the denouement of a legal drama approaches.
Here’s how a defense attorney explains it in pretty casual language.
The prosecution is putting on his case. He has the right to call witnesses to prove his case. Technically, he could deliver a subpoena to the defendant to compel him to attend the stand, or he could ask the court to call him to the stand.
Once seated and sworn in, the defendant would then have the right to testify, or to assert his right to silence via the Fifth Amendment.
Once the defendant asserted his right to silence, he would then return to his seat and the trial would move on.
The problem with this scenario is that while the defendant has the absolute right to silence, jurors don’t really understand that his right to silence does not indicate guilt.
In fact, jurors that observe a witness invoke the 5th Amendment are more like to conclude that the witness (the defendant) has something to hide.
It is for this reason that in any jurisdictions that it is considered unethical to call the defendant to the stand just for the purpose of hearing the defendant assert the 5th Amendment in front of jurors.
That’s why the ABA just simplifies it by saying that due to 5th Amendment concerns, prosecutors don’t do it. It’s not really that simple but close enough.
Are you a lawyer? I don’t think this is correct.
First point: ANY answer to ANY question could potentially be used in a criminal trial against that person. A witness does not know what charges potentially lie ahead.
Second, even if we allow that some questions are “safe” a witness is not a lawyer. He cannot be expected to know which questions are safe to answer, and which are dangerous. He has a blanket right to refuse to answer ALL questions.
Third, a witness doesn’t get to pick and choose which questions to answer. He can’t say that he will answer this question, but not that question. If he answers some questions then he has waived his right to silence.
Here’s an explanation of how the 5th works, simplified, in comic strip form. Easy to understand, informative and entertaining. Written by a lawyer who knows what he’s talking about.
I had jury duty just this past week - or more precisely I was summoned to jury duty, called in for jury selection on a trial, and neither selected nor called back. (I was prospective juror number 35. My non-selection was basically a sure thing.) During that jury selection it was made clear that the defendant would not be testifying on his own behalf, and a fairly extensive block of time was spent probing us to determine if that alone would be enough to make us think that a defendant ‘not telling his side of the story’ would be enough to make any of us think that he was hiding something. Anyone who confessed that they would indeed think that was dismissed for cause.
So yeah - if they’re going to try so hard to prevent people from drawing conclusions based on the defendant not testifying, I can’t imagine they’re going to let prosecutors willy-nilly force the defendant to plead the fifth right in front of the jury.
Moderating:
Yes, it is. It is also a thread hijack that has gone on for far too long. Please drop this side discussion about Fifth Amendment rights and return to the topic at hand. Thanks.
Not a warning.
This sounds like an accurate summary, given what I’ve read about the case.
I also just read this on the Globe and Mail site:
Toward the end of Friday’s proceedings, Reynal told Gamble that he became aware of the inadvertent phone disclosure while Jones was testifying on Wednesday.
“That’s not true,” the judge responded, telling Reynal that he had given her an email showing he had been aware 12 days earlier. “That is our position,” Reynal persisted, drawing a laugh from the judge.
So, the contents of at least one of those ‘intimate’ texts have been revealed:
Next question is: is this likely to result in the CT plaintiffs getting a hold of defense records they didn’t already have?
I know this is somewhat “old news” at this point, especially with the attention being given to the raid on Mar-A-Lago, but Legal Eagle just put up a reaction to the blunder by Jones’s lawyers, and how it all went down. It’s very amusing. I strongly recommend it to anyone else entertained by this whole fiasco.
I’m really hoping that LockPickingLawyer does a video about how easily Trump’s safe was ‘cracked’!
In all honesty that is why I was on the Legal Eagle channel, to see if he had something to say about the latest Trump drama. Instead I saw this video. I am sure he’ll have another one soon.
This has to be like Christmas for a content creator like him. They’re just serving this stuff up on a silver platter.
I have seen LockPickingLawyer before, thanks for the reminder to go check that channel too. 
Oh, man, that 22 minutes was sooooooooooooo worth it.
“Alex Jones Obliterated On Cross.”
It wasn’t what I thought it would be.
Truly. I’m watching it right now. Rather than the snippet, “You lied to me,” we’ve been getting in the 4-minute news reports, we get the plaintiffs lawyer carefully set Jones up, absolutely skewer him like a boar on a spear, and then watch him squirm like the pig he is.
All interspersed with color commentary explaining what’s happening. It’s like watching the slow mo replay of the game winning touchdown.
The Eagle weighs in on the verdict.
More evidence of what a total shit Jones is.
Although it was disappointing to learn that the $45 mil in punitive (exemplary?) damages in the Texas suit will probably get whittled down to less than a million. Because apparently Texas doesn’t approve of trying to punish very wealthy people for wrongdoing by taking lots of their money away.
My late in-laws always supported Republicans. My father-in-law suffered a surgical accident and sued the doctor for malpractice. He won the suit, but was shocked to discover that the amount received was less than the amount actually awarded. People so often don’t understand what they are voting for until it actually affects them.
They still supported Republicans. Go figure.
I guess they figured the leopards would not eat his face a second time.