Discussion in 'General Audio Discussion' started by jcamero, Dec 19, 2017.
Or Q's and J's.
[LAWYER HAT ON] Having tried cases since 1979 (never high profile stuff, and never with a budget big enough to hire celebrity experts, jury consultants and psychologists), I can tell you that demonstrations are always risky, no matter how well you prepare. Think about the prosecution having OJ try on the glove in front of the jury, and how Johnny Cochran shoved it up their a&^es in his closing argument.
The thing that doesn't sound right to me is that he didn't know how the system was going to sound until the moment it was played to the jury. Any good lawyer would set it up and do a dry run in the courtroom before trial. Most judges will let you do that. I think he's embellishing that part to create some tension in his story.
As far as his testimony being "excluded," I'm guessing the other side thought the demo was so devastating that it stipulated (agreed that a fact was undisputed) that the recording had been altered, and made a tactical decision to minimize the damage and just argue how much money. That way, Quincy's lawyer couldn't replay it in closing argument or refer to Fremer's testimony and thus reinforce in the jury's mind (ears?) how badly the recording had been butchered. [EDIT: And the judge wouldn't instruct the jury to consider Fremer's testimony and the demo.][LAWYER HAT OFF]
[AUDIO FAN HAT ON] Twice in my life I have had the thrill of hearing a really great recording played on an out-of-this world six figure system, and to say it was spine tingling and jaw dropping is an understatement.
My wife has only bought 1 album in the 29 years we have been married, and it is MJ's "BAD". It's also the most pristine album in the collection. It sounds REMARKABLE!
Agreed! I would have brought some really good dynamic omnis like MBLs and a discreet sub swarm and played one cut -"Bad" would be fine - and played the best version I could find and then the worst, most compressed version. Blabbing on about how great you are is never a good way to sway a jury (or anybody else for that matter). The whole session could have lasted less than ten minutes and the point would have been made.
When a lawyer puts an expert witness on the stand, the lawyer must prove the witness is indeed an "expert" and they do that by having the expert explain why he is a pro. Since the case was won I would say the strategy was exactly the right thing to do. Why would you say anything else since they won?
This reminds me of a case back in the early 90s and the way a certain witness proved her expertise in 'general automotive knowledge'.
Separate names with a comma.