Andrew Q Gordon

Even when there is a clear right and wrong there is no clear right and wrong. Well, the defense is paid to get a not guilty. How they do it doesn't really matter to them - well within the real of ethics. [No comments on legal ethics being an oxymoron.] In this case, it's all about the eye witnesses. Rankin is trying to give reasons for the Jury to doubt each witness - the Cop, he was out of position, Peter - he was too injuried to remember clearly, Jason - he hates Jordan for outing him and his bf was hurt, the cooperator - he's getting a good deal. Then when he puts on his case, clearly the defense is - Jordan didn't do it- he can say, there are reasons to doubt the government. Will it succeed? That's what the last chapter will tell us -- -- -- thanks for reading and commenting Wayne.

I've thought about layman's terms but then it would lose it's real feel. Sort of damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. The idea is that Martin and Dan wouldn't discuss that in layman's terms so to do so in the story would be totally out of character so that is why I went with it that way. Rankin would be hard pressed to object to his own witness but if the government witness goes astray the proper course is to ask the court to direct the witness to answer, ask to strike etc. So yeah they can object in those situations. The motive issue is that Jason has a reason to lie that is what Rankin wanted to establish. The use of Fag Bash without some other evidence would be too prejudicial without being relevant to an element of a the case. What the government would want to avoid is the argument that Jason had no good reason to raise his fist toward Jordan. Because then it would play to the defense argument that Jason was just an angry ex-friend who was still mad at Jordan. The answer, he thought he was going to be fag bashed would help explain his motive for what he did, but it is again, prejudicial in that it suggests Jordan is a fag basher. So the Judge had to balance the two. Were I judge, my ruling would be to allow the government to ask why he did it, i.e. he and Jordan weren't friends and when grabbed from behind, Jason was just taking steps to defend himself, but not allow him to offer an opinion on whether or not Jordan was a 'fag basher'. Not sure that helps, but there it is.

Chapter 3: Ex-Friends is posted. Two of Jordan's former friends testify against him. These are the last two government witnesses we will see. Next chapter begins the defense case. Enjoy. Andy

Dan scanned his notes, then checked with Martin. At the eye contact, Martin gave him a brief head shake, and Dan looked up. "No further questions, Your Honor." Unbuttoning his coat, he picked up his pen and sat down. Rankin stood, eying Jason like a lion would fresh meat. "Mr. Tellerman, you and Jordan were once friends, isn't that true?" "Yes, sir." "Best friends even." "No, sir, I don't think that's true." "So you never told people you and he were best friends?" Jas

You are correct, and Will is rightfully concerned that what he did might have dire implications. He once told Ryan that is madness over took him, those closest to him were most at risk. So he is worried, but still - if you read Goodbye, in Pieces of Purpose,, you'll note there, when Will refused - at least initially, the pull got stronger and the need greater. That is clearly lacking here, so he is cautiously optimistic. Then again, he did tell Phillip Greer, he might be back. Justice might be satisfied, but maybe no so Vengeance. So we'll need to wait and see next chapter. Thanks for reading and commenting Dave, I do so like the back and forth, this one is a bit different from the teen/college agnst thingy I've done before so I like that folks are engaged in the plot/story line. Andy

With my apologies for missing last week, here his Chapter 17 of Purpose. Another Journal Entry but just as the last two were not Gar's style, this one starts out like the Gar of old, but some how gets decidedly off track before the night is over. Read on and let me know what you think. Andy

George, I've actually got an idea for a sequel and a companion story, the sequel might have more chance of being written but maybe both who knows. Thanks for the input. Andy

No commnet, seriously, just no comment . . . . okay Sorry couldn't resist.

hellish figure? closet nudist lifestyle? Is it just me or do those two things NOT go together No worries Nathan, my retinas didn't burn looking at your 'hellish figure.'

I suppose this might be what you want, but I'm lost. Oh I get the players and stuff and that there is this tangled web you weave, but WTF is going on here??? Okay fine, I'll wait, but I'm not promising to wait forever you know . . . well I'll wait a polite amount of time before I bug I suppose

Uff - that was like two or three chapters in one. Being a lazy sod, I won't rehash things I thought that others said, but I think I left more confused that before I read this - and not because of your writing, Marc. I thought I had Davina's plans figured out but then, I read the other reviews and well now I'm more like this As for Gatling, well he kind of reminds me of Winkler, someone George probably ought not be messing with - there too much like family. Clearly Mr. Gatling wanted a piece of his Commanding officer but still. That said, Granger and Gatling seemed less randy than I expected and more I don't know - nice? I was gonna say sweet but well, I don't think that's right either. Now what happens if Mr. Roberts returns, hmm what will Gatling do? Shade of Travers and Sir Evelyn when George was with Travers but pleasing the Captain. Gatling at least has good role models LOL.

Thanks George, hope the trip was good. The direct was much longer, I ended the scene with Martin saying, let's talk about your prior encounters. As for cross, I struggled with this. I agree and disagree with that it would be longer - though more of me agrees. I remember one trial I had - kidnapping case - where I didn't ask more than 10 questions of the defendant - and I know that is different than being the defense lawyer cross examining the victim. But after about 5 questions, I realized the defendant was very well coached and I wasn't going to get that 'ah ha' moment from him so I sat down. I think the art of cross is knowing whether or not you can get the witness to break or you have something you can use against him if you can pin him down. Sometimes you can't and you're better off stopping - which limits redirect as well. BUT you're assessment is probably right on - in real life 'Rankin' would have done more, maybe a lot more. But then again, maybe that doesn't fit his defense theory. Not that I know what's gonna happen later mind you.

As I said, you were next Congrats!!!

Sorry for the lack of Chapter this week. I was rather tardy in getting things to the editors and even more remiss knowing Jian was on vacation at this time. SOO, it will probably be up next week instead. Andy

Jan, What you describe is what happened when Isabella came through in Aug/Sept 2005. The ground was super soaked and trees toppled. That in turned played havoc with the power lines. Frankly that is what I am most worried about - seems whenever we get some wind, we lose power. Fortunately, we live at the top of a hill so I am not too concerned about flooding. Depending on what I see, the path looks like it will be well east of DC, Baltimore and to a lesser extent Philly. As for you KC, you're even further west then I am so I suspect you'll be fine - wet but fine. That's my hope at least. Now watch it moves west and my house ends up in Kansas - or Oz - same difference.

Thanks Mike, but I'm not going to agree I am any better that than.

Yeah, I think so, unless you're thinking NY/NJ guido faux italian accents, then I'd agree with you. But real Italians, oh my yes - that's amore

Okay, I gotta say the urge to accept that I'm brilliant was HUGE - but I can't. I didn't select Rankin - the out of town lawyer - just to be able to 'explain' stuff without 'explaining.' In fact it wasn't even a consideration. Damn, but when you put it that way I wish I had, then I could be all breaking my arm patting myself on the back for doing something good. Way back when I was a wet behind the ears, barely had 10 bucks to my name, fresh outta law school type, I remember being in the courtroom with Judge Subers - a very nice man who would smile as he gave you sixty years, but always polite and respectful to everyone. We were just talking in the courtroom because I was 'on duty' in the miscellaneous courtroom - the one where they sent everything that didn't fit somewhere else on the criminal docket - and in walks this Philly Lawyer - we were in Montgomery County the out county from Philly - Basically this guy had a 9:30 hearing that he knew he wouldn't make so he called chambers and told the judge he was going to be late. Unknown to me, cause the case was on my docket - the Judge continued the case without telling anyone. So the lawyer comes in to the courtroom, and the Judge calmly says, 'oh, I continued that to such and such date.' The lawyer looked perplexed and said, but I called and said I'd be late. Judge Subers never lost his respectful tone, but said 'That's not good enough' this played out twice and I'm thinking - dude you need to apologize and go home. Finally the Judge turns to me and says, 'what's the issue here?' My answer was - and I know I earned myself no favors from this lawyer - "you don't call chambers and tell them you're going to be late, you call, explain you have a conflict and ask if you can come late or would the court like to reschedule.' Of course the lawyer was truly pissed, but he got the message well enough that when he asked about the date, he asked for a new one, because he already had something in Philly. Yeah long story - but that was the idea behind Rankin, no respect for the county judge because these cases weren't nothing compared to what he'd done in the 'big' city. On a side note, there is a LOT of me in Martin, not all - I'm mean he's pretty brilliant, I'm fair to middling - but the gamesmenship and theatrics that push things just so far but never beyond the realm of decorum, yeah I do that a lot - maybe more than I should but still. Thanks for the post, appreciate hearing from you.

Thanks Mike, Clearly I fall into that category of reading less than writing, - sigh, yes Anyta, I can feel you smiling and heard you say, 'I told you so' - but for me at least it is more I read a lot of the same stuff - i.e. fantasy and sci-fi not that I don't read. I'll have to take a look at the literary fiction thingy and see if I likes or not. Nice to 'see' you, you've been absent for a bit, guessing all the books signings make it hard to remember us little folk.

Thanks for the review P. As for the bit you cited, I have to say, I'm not so sure it is relevant. It adds context for sure, but how does it make an element of the crime more or less clear? I think a Judge would let it in for context and that it is not being offered for the truth, but testimony has to be relevant to the elements charged. NOW if they were a couple it might be more relevant, but I had Rankin object because it was an iffy point, one where he could legitimately make an objection that even if denied, disrupted Martin's flow AND it got the Jury thinking that was an important point = or at least maybe they would, so much so they might miss something more important in the next couple questions. But you were pretty much dead on - Rankin did it to hear himself talk and to disrupt the Prosecutor. Probably way too much for what you asked - sorry.

Autumn hands down. Cool weather, low humidity, colorful foliage, the World Series, football- college of course - and to all that I'll get to add the birth of my daughter

Well, I was in my office on the 11th floor. At first it felt like a really big something was jumping up and down. The floor started to warble. I was talking to a narcotics detective about a trial tomorrow and I said, I think were having an earth quake. He laughed and told me to enjoy it. Then the bigger jolt hit and the entire building swayed. People started screaming, getting their stuff and telling people to get out. I stayed for a bit, got a call from the hubby who couldn't believe they were evacuating the building. [i could hear the sirens going off and the PA was blaring everyone leave the building.] We hung around, people were being stupid and freaking out because no one could get cell service because EVERYONE was trying to use their cell phones to call someone. My boss was frantic, looking for her girlfriend and finally I just said, I'm going to get coffee, anyone want to go? My best friend and fellow member of the office gay brigade said yes and we left. Before we could return, an email arrived saying the office was closed for the rest of the day. I had all my stuff, Justin left with nothing. I went home, he had to wait a couple hours to get back in to get his stuff because there weren't enough building inspectors to look at the building to certify it safe. Also I heard they wouldn't let folks use the elevators at first so I have no idea how some folks were going to make it up 10 - 11 flights to our offices. Me personally, I thought it was wicked cool, until they evacuated us, but I guess I'm not right in the head because most people thought it was scary. The thought that the building was going to collapse never crossed my mind and it didn't sway THAT much. It kinda sucked because I had a free afternoon today and was planning to use it to prepare for my September trials

HAPPY BIRTHDAY KEVIN!!! Make it fun and do something note worthy Then make sure to post the pictures so we can all see what a sloppy drunk Kevin acts like

Thanks Mike, I appreciate your comments - of course if you weren't pleased I would also welcome hearing them - but I'm not gonna go begging for criticism

I wouldn't look for Darryl and the girls from that night, if the witnesses are merely corroborating other testimony, they are generally not allowed, especially if it's just to say Jordan said bad things - now if Jordan testilies errr testifies, then they can call one or two on rebuttal. As for Rankin calling the other defendants - IF Martin did his job correctly - and we'll assume he did - they would have all provided insulating statements which would make them virtually unusable to the defense, i.e. they will have implicated jordan in the event as part of their plea, so, Let's wait and see what happens - trials are tricky beasts you know. I've said it before, Jordan thinks he's too smart for everyone else. -- think that dipshit in Illinois, you know the governor - he got on the stand and just say no they're ALL lying, trust me. We saw how well that worked out for him, now didn't we?? The statement you reference, was made 9 months before the attack. Had he punched peter at the time, yeah maybe, but remember too Jordan started things by calling Peter a fag and what not. So no, even if it was inflammatory - and it was - Jordan started the name calling. Personally, I think the statement cuts both ways. Sure it gives the defense a chance to say Peter hates Jordan and will say anything to - even lie about the attack to get him in trouble, but it also give the government a chance to say - look, Jordan was PISSED at Peter calling him those names in front of everyone. He waited and planned until he could finally find a way to get revenge - because clearly he knew he couldn't beat Peter one on one. So you see there is a fine line to walk with this. Rankin wouldn't want to over play the hand or give Peter a chance to explain more than he did. With the evidence out there, he is free to spin it anyway he wants to the jury. So the key for him is get the statement out, and then try to convince the jury it means Peter has motive to lie. Whew that was a mouthful before work Thanks both of you . Andy