FADE IN.
Act 1
INT. OFFICE - DAY
PETER gets a file from a PROSECUTOR.
PROSECUTOR: The Court directed that the prosecution and the defence should agree non-contentious facts before the trial. But if the defence suggests any expert report to be agreed, don't agree to that...
PETER (V.O): True, if the expert says in the expert report that the defendant didn't have the guilty mind when the offence was committed and I've agreed to admit it for the prosecution as fiat counsel, the prosecution won't have a prima facie case.
Peter nods.
PETER (V.O.) (Cont'd): In the spirit of cooperation to save everybody's time in court trials, a word of caution of not going overboard is good.
INT. STUDY - DAY
Peter is checking a mail with his phone.
PETER (V.O.): Oh, the defence does seek my agreement to admit an expert report. I won't agree.
Peter replies.
Act 2
INT. OFFICE - DAY
Files on a table, Peter is working behind a desktop computer.
PETER (V.O.): I'd better get prepared to cross-examine a psychiatrist.
As he researches, he jots notes.
INT. COURT - DAY
The Court isn't in session yet, a defence COUNSEL is talking to Peter.
COUNSEL: Why wouldn't you agree to admit the defence's expert report?
PETER: I don't even have a copy of the expert report.
A LAWYER then gives Peter a copy. Peter reads it right away.
COUNSEL: Our Expert will give evidence and you can cross-examine him.
PETER : Thank you. As to other formalities, I'm easy.
They make some amendments on a sheet of paper just before the court session begins.
MONTAGE OF THE DUE PROCESS
A. Peter submits a typed sheet with alterations to the COURT before reading its content in public.
B. Peter calls WITNESS#1, examining her in chief.
C. After the defence's cross-examination of Witness#1, Peter re-examines her briefly.
D. Peter calls WITNESS#2, and the process is repeated.
E. The Court rules that the prosecution has made a prima facie case.
F. COUNSEL calls the EXPERT witness and does the examination in chief.
END MONTAGE
Peter is observing and listening to the Expert attentively.
PETER (V.O.): The expert got his MB. BS. in 1978. If I went to the medical school after matriculation, we should be in the same class.
Peter also reads the expert report from time to time.
PETER (V.O.) (Cont'd): In the witness box, the expert is now talking "very probably" consistently, but in his report, he wrote "probably".
Peter circles the words "probably" in the expert report.
PETER (V.O.) (Cont'd): In order to get my message across with strength, I've to deal with his exaggeration first. I've to take a destructive strategy upfront.
Thinking.
PETER (V.O.) (Cont'd): But I'd try to end my cross-examination on a high note.
As Counsel finishes her exam-in-chief, Peter rises to cross-examine the Expert. And we hear the Expert saying... I could have written "very probably"...
PETER: What criteria did you use to determine your diagnosis?
EXPERT: It's the American standard...
PETER: Is it the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual of Mental Disorder?
EXPERT: Yes.
Peter continues his cross-examination of the Expert, as the AUDIENCE in the gallery watches attentively. Then, COUNSEL raises an objection to the Court.
COUNSEL: It appears that the prosecuting Counsel is giving expert evidence himself.
PETER (V.O.): Have I gone overboard with the thrill of cross-examination?
PETER: I'm no expert. I'm just using my common-sense knowledge to cross-examine the Expert...
Act 3
INT. COURT - CONTINUOUS
PETER (Cont'd): Let me reframe and ask my last question. Do you agree that even a patient suffering from depression can still make right decisions within milliseconds?
EXPERT: ...Yes...
PETER (V.O): That's how I end my cross-examination on a high note.
INT. OFFICE - DAY
Peter is writing something in a file.
PETER (V.O.): My decades of self-training on active listening has paid off.
Reflecting.
PETER (V.O.)(Cont'd): I pay attention to a speaker's verbal and non-verbal language to fully understand what they're trying to communicate.
Pausing.
PETER (V.O.)(Cont'd): Not only that I can remember the key points of a speaker's message, I'd also analyse them with a view to raising the levels of explanation.
Pausing.
PETER (V.O.)(Cont'd): And then, I'd respond to the speaker by asking sharp questions embedding my different views.
Thinking.
PETER (V.O.)(Cont'd): There's no harm going overboard, intellectually speaking.
Peter smiles
FADE OUT.
THE END
Comentarios