EVIDENCE CLASS

I was so fascinated with my Evidence subject the other day. Setting aside the fact that I always have an admiration for trial lawyers because of the way they ask questions during the court processings/cross examination (which I think must be a gift enhanced with a certain degree of passion to the profession and of course "preparation"), my professor in said subject is really good.

I immediately remembered another professor who is, by the way, a successful trial lawyer...he once said during a court proceeding "Passion is the Hallmark of sincerity!" (with a loud tap of his closed-fist on the table). He uttered this when the presiding judge called his attention, which luckily the latter bought hehehe. Great! I think...at least there was a creative, if not better, explaination why he should not be in contempt. Being articulate and persuasive at the same time could really put one counsel a step far behind others.


My professor, who is a successful trial lawyer, possesses these skills and every time he speaks- it makes me wish to also possess that moderate tone of voice that he has...his articulate play words and his surprising, clever, deep and deceiving way of thinking and asking.
He shares that more than anything else..."preparation" really matters. More than the knowledge of the law there are other things which a trial lawyer must know....and that will set one apart from a non-lawyer. Everybody can just read and study the elements of a crime, of the new special laws, of codal provisions and of legal updates...but of course there are still "other" things that makes one different from the other...otherwise, everybody could just be a lawyer.

As the Rules of Court defines it, "It is a means sanctioned(of this rules), of ascertaining in a judicial proceedings the truth respecting a matter of fact".
I know I have to make good at this subject( as I think this is the heart of the profession). Our court is a passive court and thus status of a case depends on the pieces of evidence presented and admitted. The prosecution has the burden of proof to convict beyond reasonable doubt and in order to do that, the prosecution must establish the guilt, otherwise, the case could be dismissed. In establishing the guilt, evidence will of course play vital role whether it is a real, testimonial or documentary. It will really play an important role in ascertaining the truth. However, the court is concerned not on the "actual truth" but rather on the "legal truth"...at times a homicide could be a murder or vise versa.


Both of my professor's parents are lawyers and have bought the first and second edition of the set of books of Proof of Facts. When he became a lawyer he bought the third and the fourth edition. Said books are good references, such that it will tell one how to conduct a cross examination depending on the profession or other circumstances of a person/subject. Just for instance, how to make a widow (who is claiming for damages for the death of her spouse) laugh through the questions. How to ask someone who is good at this and that. How to ask someone who has attained higher education and one who hardly know how to read and write.
Quite interesting, right?

It made me now realized that I shouldn't stop "knowing" different kinds of people...of different area or field....of different status of life...of different gender or preferences. Knowing how one thinks, feels, acts and speaks is not only one way of developing one's personality but likewise one's profession.