Arizona’s mascot is the Wildcats.

Virginia lost because they slow the game down and limit the total number of possessions.

Princeton won because they slow the game down and limit the total number of possessions.

As a Hoya, good riddance.

Seriously, though, that’s one hell of a run. Doubt it will ever be duplicated.

Yes, I too am shocked that the prosecutor people are complaining didn’t do his job said that he did, in fact, do his job.

There’s no point in wasting time explaining the obvious ways he could’ve been charged to you. Based on my own personal experience, anyone with a legal background claiming he couldn’t have been charged is either lying or being deliberately ignorant. Feel free to choose your own adventure.

I have read what actually happened, but my post wasn't about all the differences between the two cases. It was just about "one important distinction."

Next time, I'd suggest reading what was written before responding. Best of luck to you.

One important distinction:

Ray Lewis was charged and put on trial. Similar situations, but the potential consequences are different when you're a star athlete in Alabama.

The newsworthy part is that he hasn't been charged, which was the point of the article. Almost every other person in his situation would've been.

Your claim that the state of Alabama would absolutely charge Miller with a crime if they could is laughable.

They've chosen not to do so, but he 100% could've been charged in several different ways if the authorities had wanted to go that direction.

SOMEBODY STOP ME

They’re the opposite of transparent. They lie when they release data, and now they’ve entirely stopped updating case numbers and deaths.

They’re not interested in the truth or doing anything that helps the rest of the world.

Typically speaking, cross examination is an effort to develop testimony that supports your theory of the case or makes specific points you believe are important.

The idea is to ask specific questions that you know the witness will have to answer a particular way. Leading questions allow you to guide the witness where you want to go. Direct questions are open-ended and often allow the witness to explain things in greater detail.

It's all strategy, but I can assure you asking direct questions on cross-examination isn't a good approach. But you're absolutely right--Rule #1 is to be sure not to ask questions if you don't already know how the witness will answer.

Fair enough. That would be terrible cross examination and likely put you and your client in a bad spot, but I’d say you’re right that a prosecutor wouldn’t want to interrupt if a defense attorney was screwing things up that badly.

I’m an attorney, and I deal with it all the time.

The rules on leading are incredibly relaxed in state court proceedings, likely because many people don’t really understand the rule. But it’s a different story in federal court. I’ve seen judges end direct examination by federal prosecutors when they continued to ask leading questions over objection.

Sigh.

You’re correct that cross examination questions have to be within the scope of the topics discussed on direct examination.

I was taking about the form of the question. Many people including a number of attorneys don’t understand the difference between cross and direct. On direct, questions like my second example are prohibited because they lead to a specific answer. Those kinds of questions are only permitted on cross.

Also, cross examination questions aren’t yes or no. They lead to either yes or no.

So not “Did you check the victim’s pulse?” but “You didn’t check the victim’s pulse, did you?”

Not so sure about hospitals, but I do think we'd see some benefit if nutrition information was broadcast through social media. People need that information drilled into their brains for it to have any chance of changing behavior.