Great Deal! Get Instant $10 FREE in Account on First Order + 10% Cashback on Every Order Order Now

Read the trial transcript in the attachment below (From Michelson v. United States , 335 U.S XXXXXXXXXXIdentify, by line number and page number, the objections each party should have made. Explain...

1 answer below »

Read the trial transcript in the attachment below (From Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S XXXXXXXXXXIdentify, by line number and page number, the objections each party should have made. Explain what rule the objection is based on. Explain your reasoning.
What other issues may be raised for the witness’s testimony? Explain.
You do NOT need to write an IRAC essay for this assignment.

http://nationalparalegal.edu/uploads/19Assignment 2 trial transcript.pdf
this project is due by 12 noon on sept XXXXXXXXXX
Document Preview:

1 Direct Examination of Character Witness for defendant Michelson 2 (Michelson is on trial for having bribed an IRS agent.) 3 4 [Witness is sworn in and introduced to the jury with pedigree information] 5 6 Q: Do you know the defendant John Michelson? 7 8 A: Yes. 9 10 Q: How do you know him? 11 12 A: We knew each other in high school, and we have remained close friends ever since. 13 14 Q: So how long have you known him? 15 16 A: About thirty years. 17 18 Q: And what is your opinion of his character? 19 20 A: John is a very honest man. He is a truthful and law-abiding citizen. 21 22 Q: What leads you to this conclusion? 23 24 A: Well, he has worked as a sales representative for twenty years, and in that line of work 25 there is a great temptation to fiddle with your stats, to make them look better than they 26 are in the year-end report. But he’s never done that. 27 28 Q: Do you know other people who know Mr. Michelson? 291 A: Yes, we belong to the same club downtown and we have many common business 2 associates. 3 4 Q: Have you ever had the chance to discuss Mr. Michelson with these common 5 acquaintances? 6 7 A: Yes. 8 9 Q: Have you ever talked about his reputation? 10 11 A: Oh yes. Mr. Michelson’s reputation is very good in the community. He is known as a 12 peaceful, quiet man, who will never start an argument and never hold a grudge against 13 anyone. 14 15 Q: What about his reputation for honesty? 16 17 A: He is known throughout the community as an honest man and a law-abiding citizen. 18 19 20 [Cross-examination] 21 22 Q: Mr. Witness, are you aware of the fact that twenty years ago Mr. Michelson was 23 convicted of selling watches without the proper trademark? 24 25 A: No, I never heard of such a thing. 26 27 Q: And are you aware of the fact that twenty-one years ago, Mr. Michelson was convicted 28 of smoking marijuana? 29 30 A: No, I did not know that. 311 Q: And did...

Answered Same Day Dec 27, 2021

Solution

David answered on Dec 27 2021
108 Votes
Introduction
Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469 (1948) is an ideal case while refe
ing to the
admissibility options of character evidence in terms of examining the defendant‟s point of view
of having a so called „clean character‟ throughout his/her life. In the present case, John, the
defendant, actually
ibed a federal officer and the matter was
ought forward to the honorable
consideration of court in terms of examining whether John was of guilty. The defendant argued
that he was induced by the officer to
ibe and there was no fault of him involved in this process.
The following examination of the testimony and its cross examination justifies the point of John
and makes the decision of the court a relevant case theory in itself.
The Examination of Trial Transcript
Upon being asked by the prosecutor, the witness accepted the fact that he and John were
high school friends in line no 7 page 1, the witness showed agreement to the question by
esponding in affirmation that he knew John and upon being asked for how much time he and
John were good friends, the witness stated that they were acquainted since high school which
actually made it a tenure of thirty years if seen from legal perspectives, the time period is enough
to know the details of someone in terms of social personalities though, being friendly with
someone does not infer all details are known i.e. there might be fractions of truths which are
overlooked by the witness or they are might be not disclosed by the defendant to his friend.
(During the cross examination, the non trademark selling of the watches was not known to the
witness.)...
SOLUTION.PDF

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

More Questions »

Submit New Assignment

Copy and Paste Your Assignment Here