In the initial post, you are asked to answer the same set of questions first based on the information from the examination in chief and then from the cross-examination. The objective of these sets of questions is to examine how each side (prosecution and defence) control information through questioning and to contrast your perception of the witness and their testimony in light of the questions asked by each side. In your post, please use the same numbering as below to make it clear what questions you are answering.
1. Read the first set of excerpts from the trial transcript titled examination in chief and use the attached files such as Ehrlich to
answer the following questions:
(a) describe the gist of the two incidents involving allegations of sexual assault as they
appear from LRs testimony. You do not need to go into great amount of detail; only
describe the key aspects.
(b) how is the prosecutor controlling the narrative about the incidents in question and the
image of LR through his choice of questions and their wording?
(c) what is your impression of LR and her testimony? Please explain.
IMPORTANT: please write down the answers to the above questions after reading
examination in chief; do not start reading cross-examination until you complete this
first part of the post.
2. Read the second set of excerpts from the trial transcript (3 files titled cross-examination)
and use the attached files such as Ehrlich and powerpoints to answer the following questions:
(a) has the gist of the incidents in question changed (compared to examination in chief)?
If yes, how? If not, why not?
(b) how is the defence controlling the narrative about the incidents and the image of LR
through her choice of questions and their wording? Is the wording and nature of
questions different than that of the prosecution? (if yes, in what way is it different?)
(c) has your impression of LR and her testimony changed following cross-examination
(compared to the impression you got after examination in chief)? If yes, why and how?
If not, why not?
The initial post should be approximately 1,000 words. There is no specific word limit for an answer to each question. Answers to 1(a) and 2(a) are likely to be shorter because you describe only the gist of the allegations. In contrast, the rest of the answers need more elaboration, so they are likely to be longer. Overall, please keep your discussion balanced, so that each question receives the attention they deserve and is answered fully (ie, that you do not end up with only a line or two on one answer and multiple paragraphs on another) and keep the answers numbered the same as the questions.
