[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 8/25/03
Time: 5:33:05 PM
Remote Name: 68.73.194.240
Nancy Drew,
I couldn’t find anything that an honest “no” answer could do to Denise’s anticipated testimony IN COURT that compares to the implications of not answering the question in the deposition. If you can think of an example, I’d love to hear it.
A “no” answer would have been challengeable in court. An instruction not to answer left the door open for the defense but required the defense to do the work of producing the incriminating documents and turning them over to the plaintiffs. In effect, instructions not to answer questions like that buried the defense in “things to do” and gave the plaintiffs the benefit of their labor. In the numerous places Kelly and Petrocelli instructed their clients not to answer, the defense had to find the answers themselves.
Either Denise had passengers or she didn’t. If she had no passengers, a “no” answer would have ended questions about passengers. If she had passengers other than Shipp or Faye, a “no” answer would have ended questions about Shipp and Faye. Not answering the question left the door open on both of them and tainted with doubt Denise’s further statements about not socializing with Shipp and not knowing Faye. –Jasper