Tweet
We will resume at five minutes (past?) the hour with David Boies’ cross examination of David Blankenhorn.
Boies: Did you agree with this document that marriage has six importnat dimensions?
A: Yes I did
Q: The first is that it is a legal contract
A: Yes
Q: whether hetero or samesex, it would be a legal contract
A: Yes
Q: The second dimension is financial. Same for hetero ansd ss"?
A: yes
Q: marriage is a sacred promise?
A: YEs
Q: Sexual union?
A: Yes
Q: Personal bond?
A: Yes
Q: Family-making bond? Does this sixth dimension mean only two people or a way of establishing children?
A: I’m afraid — can you repeat?
Q: let me break it up. This sixth dimension is that it is afmaily making bond. When two marry they make a family, right?
A: Yes
Q: whether same or opposite sex?
A: Yes
Q: Can both ss and opp raise children in a family=making bond?
A: Yes sir, the important word is the word raise.
Q: In that connection, let me ask you to turn to Tab 9. PX2898, articel in Social Sceince Quarterly: Same Sex Marriage & Negative Eternalities.
A: I am looking at this for the first time.
Q: Do you know either of these authors?
A: Not familiar
Q: You don’t know any of theri worwk?
A: Can’t say I do.
Q: Your honor take judicial notice?
OBJECTION (or question)
Q: See on this document, there is a section called Conclusions, you see that?
A: YEs
Q: "The argumnet that same sex marriage cannot harm heterosexual marriage as a negative externalities doe sno t hold up rationally"
Are you aware of other scholars who also hold this view?
A: Yes some say it is so self evident, that anyone who hold the opposite view are thought not rational by many scholars. It goes untested.
Q: Incidentally, you talk about other scholars: have you loooked at what associations of scholars have said about same sex marriage?
A: Yes I have a number of them maybe not all.
Q: Do you know for example what (ANOTHER BINDER! YAY!) position the American PsychoAnalytic Assoc takes
A: My recollection is their lobbying body has endorsed it
Q: Their lobbyuing body?
A Their leaders, I guess I mean
Q Look at Tab 3 please.
A: My Tab doesn’t say this Am I in the wrong book. Oh here it is
Q PX763
A A position paper
Q Yes, it says the American PsychoAnalytic Assoc in 1997 endorsed marriage as a baasic human right and the state should not interfere in same sex couples who seek civil marriage. Were you aware of this?
A: yes I have reasd this, I have read many such statements. I may be able to save us time that saying many groups as a policy matter have endorsed same sex marriage.
Q: You say as a policy matter, please look at the references on page four in this document.
A: YEs I see them
Q: Have you reasd them?
A: Some not all
Q Which have oyou not read
A BRdford chan faulkner, Green, King, Herek, can;t recall if I’ve read this Kirk, Hertzner, Blaizer, Kim, Meyer, Morris, Paterson (not sure, read her work, I think I may have read this one, not 100%) Peplau, Williams
Q So you think you read (cites authors, Gallagher among them…)
A That’s my best answer right now.
Q Let me just go on. The American Psychological Assoc has also adopted in favor of gay marriage.
A: Yes sir
Q: PX765, Tab 4: Have you seen this document before?
WALKER: In evidence?
Q: Yes your honor
A: I am fairly confident I read it when it came out, I certainly I have read excerpts and read about it, but not absolutely certain I have read it all.
Q: Last three pages are a series of references, see that?
A: Yes
Q: This is a long list, glancing at it, have you rest most or not most?
A By most do you read 50%
Q: Trying to determine whether its easier to list those you have or haven’t, which is faster
A: Have not read at least 51% of these
Q: then tell me what you have NOT read.
A: (deep, deep sigh) Most of these I have not read.
WALKER: Is the question "read" or "not read?"
Q: Read, your honor.
A: Estrich, Goodridge, JOhnson, I think. I think those few are the ones I have read.
Q Did you read both of the Estrich?
A Just his book
Q: Have you read four or perhaps five of the forty listed references here?
A: That’s right
Q: Turn to Tab 10 of your first binder this morning, PX2899.
A; Having a hard time finding which binder
Q: Approach, your honor?
WALKER Very well.
Boie associate assists
Q: Tab 10, PX2899, Would Providing Marriage rights to Same Sex Couples Undermine Marriage?
A: Not listed on my sources, I have read Badgett, but perhaps not this article
NO OBJECTION
Walker: Very well
A: She is a prominent proponent of same sex marriage
Q: She is a well regarded scholar
A: I don’t know her, I am perfectly happy to take your word
Q: But you don’t know her work?
A: Well she seems to be a respected thinker, even though she is on the opposite side.
Q: PX2, other binder, please
A: I think it’s on my list, the Amato article.
Q: Request to move into evidence, this article Amato investigates how chuildren in both bio parent households differ from children with only one bio parents.
A: Well I see you read this summary written by someone else. but his title is…
Q: You’ve read all this?
A Yes
Q: Do you have a current understanding to sy what the overall methodology was?
A: Whether children who grow up continuously married bio parents using a large body of data to estimate outcome differences with children from other family structures. Makes certain conclusions about those inquiries. Makes a policy recommendation at the end that –
Q: Not asking you summarize, is it your understanding that he compares outcome differences between children of both bio parents and other children? Yes or no
A: Well not really
Q: Read the second paragraf of the doc: Amato begins by investigating how children… Do you see that?
A: Well I was reading –
Q: DO YOU SEE THAT?
A: Yes
Q: Is it your understanding that Amato use the term biological parents to include adoptive parents?
A: yes sir.
Q: wrt the issue of biology, you believe it is more important that children grow up with two parents than with a single bio parenet, correct?
A: Not familiar to me as a statement of mine
Q: Have you stated we should encourage unmarried women to give up their babies to married adoptive couples?
A: Specifically in reference to unmarried teenage girls, I may have ben part of a study that made such a recommendation.
Q: Your honor, may I have a moment?
WALKER: Very well.
Boutrous, Cooper, and Boies chat.
Boies: We have a list of docs, your honor, to be added as exhibits.
Q: Alright Mr uh Mr… BLankenhorn let me…. let me just ask you hopefully two more quick areas. First, would you turn to Tab 3 in the binder.
A: I have it
Q: This is the review article you referred to previously, in American Pediatrics.
A: I’m sorry, my tab says…. Lesbian MOthers Gay Fathers and Their Children?
Q: Yes are you familiar with this document?
A: I don’t beleive so.
Q: In something called the abstract, you know what that is?
A: Of course
Q: (reads abstract) Are you aware of other articles that reach this conclusion.
A: yes
Q: Marriage is always changing?
A I wrote those words
Q Marriage has no single definition?
A Iwrote those words too
Q: Your honor I have no further questions.
WALKER: Redirect [rehabilitation, more like it] Mr Cooper?
Cooper: Is your entire book in front of you?
B No it is not
WALKER: DIX956 is the entire book
Cooper: May I hand this to the witness
WALKER: yes you may
Cooper: Do you recall a passage Boeis read from page two: "Principle of human dignity must apply to g&l persons?" Recall that?
A: Yes
Q: Many thinkers, including Berlin, many choices we face are not between good and bad but between good and good. Sometimes the two goods are in conflict. This understanding is the choice between good of all persons, and the good of a child raised with both its bio parents. These can be in conflict" Is this the conflict of goods you disccused with Mr Boies?
A: yes sir
Q: Turn to page 20 of tab 13, witness binder, excerpt of your book.
A; which binder? oh yes I have it.
Q recall Boies you made clear that to the degree you must choose between the rights of gays and the interests served by customary marriage you would with anguish choose those served by custormary marriage?
A: Yes
Q: (reads) 1 priority is the needs and rights of ss couples: partnershiup, social acceptance, rights. The other priority is children. TO the degree they can be in harmony or exist in peace, I want to embrace them both. Is thast your view?
A: Yes
Q They can be embraced in harmony?
A: Yes
Q: The good public policy outcomes from ss marriage can be found in DP?
A: Yes. That has been my own conclusion as I wrestle with goods in conflict. I have culminated in the asrticle in the NYT where I endorse the protection of marriage for its distinctive purpose and also very strong DP structures.
Cooper: No further questions, I want to submit that NYT article.
NO OBJECTION
Walker: Marked as DIX next in order.
Cooper: no further questions
WALKER: Thank you for your testimony, you may step down, mr blankenhorn. Any more witnesses, Cooper?
Cooper: No further witnesses, you honor
WALKER: I understand there are some document.
THOMPSON: This wil take a brief moment. WE have a proffer of docs, the plaintiffs have not objected, official campaign materials and speeches of ProtectMarriage.com
Thompson: Additionally we have the counterdesignations of Nathanson and YOUng, pink and yellow in the record. WE have counterdesignations of Dr Tam, submitted under whatever objections the plaintiffs have.
Boutrous: We want until the end of the week?
WALKER : Yes
THompson: One more item, our motions to compel are outstanding to the NO campaign we might want to review those docs and ask questions.
WALKER: Very well, we have asked for those parties to respond, we issued a subpoena to those three partes, we will recieve plaintiffs response by Friday. Housekeeping from Plaintiffs?
Boutrous: PX2332A, Blankenhorn’s marked up exhibibt needs moved into evidence.
WALKER: hearing no objection….
None
Boutrous: During Boies referred to DX956, Blankenhorn’s book is also PX744.
WALKER: Very well, we will simply note in the record that these two exhibits are the same book
Boutrous: We now have official copies of 2581 and 2566 (IRS letter to PRIDE and to MATTACHINE society, we’d like to replace the website copies with the official Library of Congress copies.
WALKER: Very well
Boutrous: We want time to review what the DIs just gave us.
WALKER: Are there any rebuttal witnesses, Mr Boutrous?
WALKER: Anything further from the AG or the other defendants?
(none)
Walker: we have some items to clear up. One is the subpoena to NO on 8, defendants have asked for. We have not resolved the motion to withdraw by Dr Tam, it’s fully briefed. Another motion to intervene has been fully briefed, just need a ruling. We have 137 documents from the plaintiff that have not been entered in to the record. Do you recall those, Mr Boutrous?
Boutrous: (can’t hear)
Walker: Well we have the documents, thing do run downhill don’t they.
[although I am interested in Moss's attire today, I will share this privately via email with Marcy later]
Walker: Amicus briefs? My inclination — I have an inclination, do the parties have ideas they wish to offer.
Boutrous: The court wants amicus briefs, if they are brief, if the court thinks they would be useful, seven days from now.
Cooper: It is difficult to imagine the court needs additional information , but it would be nice if we could put in our own papers after all our received.
WALKER: Next WEdnesday, seven days from now 2/3 applications to file amicus briefs. The court will consider all aplications, and set a fifteeen page limit on any amicus, and give the parties time to respond. I agree with Mr Cooper that it is an abundant record, and I doubt that amicus can add much but you never know. I think that is it.
Walker: One other matter Mr Cooper?
Cooper: When will we see you again?
Walker: I need some time, you may wish to submit references to the evidence with your proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. You presented your cases with those findings in mind and conclusions. I do know you have a lot of material to go through. Once I receive those, I will consider all that material and then set a date for closing arguments.
Walker: I will key up some questions thast have come to the fore, give you the opportunity to answer those in your arguments and your briefing. Leaving date open, clerk will call both sides with a range of dates. I only request references to the evidence with regard to your findings and conclusions. How much time do you need to do that?
Boutrous: Thirty days your honor
Walker: Mr Cooper?
Cooper: Thirty days.
Walker: then 2/26 is the deadling for submitting all your papers, and I may set a date then.
Boutrous: I want to thank the court’s staff
WALKER: I want to thnk the attonreys for pleading, fine work, many younger lawyers in the case here in the courtroom and behind the scenes, you old hands should take great pride and pleasure in their work. You have done a wonderful job on an extraordinary case. I wasnt to congratulate you for the fine work you have done here. Thank you.
Walker leaves bench.
We are done. If you like what you’ve seen here at FDL, please consider a contribution of any size to our efforts. Thank you!
71 Comments
Teddy, Blog (47) is not appearing on the main page again.
If you mean the front page of FDL, #46 is up there currently, you will need to scroll down the page:
http://firedoglake.com/ and #47 is not in publish for FDL at this time.
If you mean the front page of Seminal, those go up sometime later, not immediately after Teddy writes them.
If you mean the Prop 8 page, you are correct that 47 did not immediately appear on that page; they do not go up automatically, they are added manually. It is there now.
Should be now.
Teddy posts the liveblog, then the whizzes backstage move it to the Hub and to the front page as time permits.
But thanks for the heads up–sometimes that doesn’t happen automatically.
Marcy, thanks for your work during this trial and for your help to Teddy to keep the trial blog going. This has been an extraordinary opportunity…hearing reasoned, logical debate. Geesh…my 17-ear-old twins were raised during the Bush&Co era…there is a generation of kids who have not been exposed to public discourse. I have been keeping them informed about this trial and it seems I have to really teach them what logic and reason is.
I’ve taught professional students in the DVM program and I (and many others) have to agree.
There seems to be a pervasive “spoon-feeding” attitude among younger generations. They want the information given to them rather than having to research and make logical conclusions. Many of my students hated me because I wouldn’t just tell them why I was doing what I was doing. My reasoning: they were going to be making these decisions in less than a year and I wasn’t going to be there standing over their shoulders telling them how to treat their patients. They resisted learning logical thinking, favoring regurgitation instead. Doesn’t work in medicine.
Medicine is an Art based on Scientific Principles.
for those attending the court house — are there active Demonstrations still going on outside the court house — either For or Against PROP 8 ??? The local news channels (SF BAY AREA) aren’t showing anything if there are.
Great job, Teddy.
The Courage Campaign Institute has been blogging the proceedings minute by minute and they have set up a special email list for those who want to be notified when Judge Walker schedules the final arguments.
They will also update people the moment he issues his final ruling on the case.
I just signed up to get the updates and thought you might be interested in receiving them as well. It only takes a minute: http://www.couragecampaign.org/Prop8TrialUpdate
Thanks for the link.
It just occurred to me – based on Blankenhorn’s testimony on cross, heterosexual polygamy and polyandry are completely acceptable, as long as each heterosexual relationship is established by a separate marriage ceremony.
Bravo, Blankenhorn, your Mormon allies can be proud.
I’m not an expert, but I think that in many polygamous societies there is a clear distinction between number-one wife and all the others. The “others” have such an inferior social status in some cases that the “one-man-one-wife” fiction doesn’t hold for them. The “others” are more under the power and authority of the number-one wife than they are under the power and authority of the man. Or at least that is how it seems to work in practice. In other words, the “others” are more sex partners than they are “wives” as Blankenhorn’s three principals hold.
But as I say, I’m not an expert.
Not an expert? Didn’t stop Blankenhorn!
HA! :-)
Even so, I’d bet you’re more of an expert than Blankenhorny.
Oh, maybe they have some half-wives?
And I guess that leaves out group sex. He can only have sex with one at a time. Do they take a number?
Or if he does have sex with two or more of his wives at a time, is he committing adultery with one of them?
He’s just being efficient. It’s a recession after all; we must all learn to do more with less.
Thanks for your hard work, I really appreciate “seeing” this trial through your efforts.
I just read a funny blog comment regarding Blankenhorn’s punch line stating that perhaps together he and Boies can make sex interesting. Apparently the commenter’s entire office are now calling Blankenhorn, “Blankenhorny”.
BAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH!
Allow me to join the chorus and voice my deep appreciation of the work that Mr. Partridge is doing. I’m truly impressed, and I offer my sincere thanks.
Bravo Teddy.
Great to see Blankenhorn getting skinned alive.
And in regard to Maggie Gallagher She’s now trying to claim she doesn’t hate us at all.
Clearly a consequence of this trial.
Then why doesn’t she just stay out of the business of other people and take care of her own problems – which I imagine are many.
This witness really sounds more like a high school freshman trying to study for a final exam… WHILE THE TEST IS GOING ON!!!
Are the DI’s (and their attorneys) really so myopic and naive as to think that personal belief and expert knowledge are synonymous?
As I understand the structure of the US Courts of Appeals, and SCOTUS… there are no “do-overs” when it comes to witnesses. What could their strategy possibly be?
I posted this on CC’s TrialTracker… perhaps it will answer your questions?
I only had 1 semester of law school just to be clear.
From what I remember based on the fact pattern, if Judge Walker finds for the plaintiffs, Prop 8 is deemed invalid.
That would leave grounds for the D-I to appeal to the 9th Circuit (the most liberal Circuit). If D-I chooses not to appeal and take the loss, then Sec. 7.5 (correct me if I am wrong on the amendment #) of CA’s Constitution would be overturned, thus ssm would resume in CA. The decision would not be binding on any other state, but can be used as persuasive authority and would most likely be cited in other federal challenges across the nation. Much like the state – by – state method at the state level as waged by HRC, et al.
If D-I appeal (sure they will), then the 9th Circuit will look at the court record to determine if any errors occurred in applying the law to the facts. They cannot exclude the facts brought in as evidence unless there is some sort of procedural error. They will either affirm Walker’s decision (leaving it in tact) or overturn it. Based on the 9th Circuit’s liberal stance, it would uphold the ban on ssm (assuming Walker rules for P). Note that new evidence cannot be introduced, this is why Judge Walker is letting in as much evidence into the record as possible. It makes it much more difficult for the Appeals & SCOTUS to overturn a decision when there is a large amount of evidence and fact patterns (as in this case). Walker even said he expected the case to go beyond his court.
If the 9th Cir. affirms / says Prop 8 is unconstitutional, then it’s not only binding in CA, but also the other states with state constitutional bans in its jurisdiction would be overturned, i.e. AZ (Sen. McCain’s turf), NV, ID, OR, WA, MT, AK (Palin’s turf), HI, Guam (US Territory), & Northern Mariana Islands (US Territory).
I do not forsee the SCOTUS ignoring this and they would have to address this. It only takes 4 justices to grant cerotiari. My guess is that the 4 justices who dissented on the YouTube decision would grant cert.
Hope this helps.
Any lawyers or JDs want to clear anything I muddled up?
Not a lawyer, but you left out whether or not Walker or the appellate court has the option of staying the decision pending appeal – whether or not new same sex marriages could be kept on hold or whether it is automatic that a new potential “window” might open (and possibly close again.)
I’m not a litigator or appellate attorney, but I believe an appeal would automatically stay the effect of Walker’s order (assuming he rules for the plaintiffs). In other words, Prop 8 would remain the law of California while the appeal is pending.
(Not a lawyer, but had a semester of law school – any lawyers / JDs jump in & correct me if I am wrong).
I don’t believe Walker would stay his own decision, and even if he could, why would he? He has made his judgement on the facts presented and applied the law.
Yes, the 9th Circuit could stay the decision until it is reviewed. Walker did not
open the windowallow SSM to happen before or during the trial because he gave a speedy trial. I do not know how the 9th Circuit would go, perhaps stay the decision BUT there is evidence in court record that could show that if we’re determined to be a suspect class then the decision would not be stayed.Something interesting from WikiPedia The appellate court cannot refuse to listen to the appeal.
A couple of very general principles:
Presuming the D-Is lose at trial, the 9th Circuit could opt not to stay the District Court’s decision while considering the D-Is appeal. However, for cases like this, one can generally operate under the assumption that an appeal effectively also draws a stay, putting the District Court’s order on hold until the Circuit Court renders its decision. The reasons are rather obvious, I’d say.
Also, the D-Is will have the right to an appeal of the decision, as would the Plaintiffs if they lose. Again, generally speaking, if a party loses at trial, it generally gets an opportunity to ask the appeals court for relief (the main exception being in criminal cases if the prosecution loses). In this case (again assuming the D-Is lose), D-I’s could argue that Judge Walker’s legal conclusions were wrong and the 9th Circuit should overrule him. Or, they could argue that Judge Walker actually committed errors at trial–most often such errors involve matters of evidence, objections, etc., and also jury instructions (not relevant here)–in which case the 9th Circuit could direct Judge Walker to reconsider his ruling or even order a new trial.
Like I said, these are just general ways to think of these things. And of course, there are almost always exceptions to just about everything.
Very well put. I knew I was missing some things.
Thank you for answering all of the questions I was about to ask. To be clear, the defense on appeal couldn’t call witnesses that they didn’t call for this trial? Are they are stuck with these two (as if they’d want them again) and no more? Or could they call people who weren’t called for this case?
Appellate courts do not hear new evidence. They will get all the transcripts of the trial testimony and exhibits. There will be briefing and oral argument by the lawyers, but no witnesses. The appellate courts are only looking to see if there was an error committed by the trial judge. Did he let in something he shouldn’t have? Did he exclude something that he should have let in? Did he misapply the law to the facts? Did he make any other judicial errors? Appellate courts do not re-weigh the evidence and second guess the trial judge. That’s why it’s so important that Walker makes specific findings and ties those to the evidence presented.
(Disclaimer: I’m just a trusts and estates lawyer, not a litigator or appellate expert)
At the appeals level, no one will be able to call any witnesses. Appeals courts do not embark on fact-finding, only legal analysis. The trial courts do the job of gathering the facts (witnesses, evidence) and preserving a record of them. If the appellate judges have questions as to factual matters, they rely upon the record established at trial.
Ah, that makes sense.
The 9th wouldn’t just be ruling on CA’s state constitution?
The 9th Circuit would be ruling on this case, however if they affirm Walker’s decision and then a federal challenge is brought up in one of the 9th Circuit’s other states, then the decision of affirming Perry (assuming it goes that way) is binding precedence on the federal courts in those states.
Their strategy likely relies on the hope that five SCOTUS Justices will rule in their favor, despite the actual integrity of their case.
Yes, it is interesting as the Supremes in the majority are either Catholic first and Federalists second or the other way around?
Nice bind.
Incompetent counsel?
They’re appealing to Anthony Kennedy’s strong bias to patronizing patriarchalism (as exposed in Carhart) and the Scalia/Roberts/Alito/Thomas wing’s notion that we live in/are reincarnation of the Roman Empire.
This decision in SCOTUS rests almost entirely on Kennedy. Time for him to step up.
he’s been very disappointing as of late.
Yes, he has but maybe…..
Game, set and Match for the plaintifs.
The redirect, like most of the questions from the defence was marginal, and after having been subjected to a Boies dissection the way their witnesses were I think the defence should have rested with no redirect, there was absolutely nothing for them to salvage.
Should introduce this family as witnesses:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1246153/Second-pregnant-man-Scott-Moore-birth-baby-boy-month.html
Make their heads explode.
Is that it???
Congrats on great work, Teddy! It’s a big Vodka Thirty for you!!
Teddy, thank you so very, very much for transcribing all this testimony. It has been thrilling to “be there” with you/via your typing (as well as Marcy and DDayen). I thank you from the bottom of my heart.
Also, great company. Thanks for everyone’s witty commentary and/or informative links.
Teddy
I’m a straight woman living in London, England, who recognises that we must all hang together if we don’t want to be hung separately.
Thank you for all your hard work.
There’s a lot of material and and shoud. Walker rule in our favor it would be hard for Kennedy to dismiss us out of hand.
Could the Supremes let a an anti-Prop 8 ruling stand? It’s an interestign question as the Heterosexual Dictatorship never likes to discuss its power — or us.
Justice Kennedy did rule strongly in favor of GLBT rights in both Romer v Evans (Colorado Prop 2) and Lawrence v Texas (Sodomy). So, have faith and persevere!
how the hell does he type this fast? It is SF, get a finger massage somewhere too!
thanks
Great company. Thanks all for your insights and commentary.
Woohoo! And we’re out for a bit.
“[although I am interested in Moss's attire today, I will share this privately via email with Marcy later]“…
well now you’ve got me curious
I wanna know what Moss was wearing today!!
Teddy, just want to thank you for your fast finger and endurance. Go enjoy an early 5 O’clock Happy Hour! You know that Marcy would!
I, too would love to know what Moss was wearing. And what color was Walker’s tie? Red or Blue? hehehe
A: Well she seems to be a respected thinker, even though she is on the opposite side.
Oh, yeah…THAT statement didn’t just emphasize his prejudices. (/snark)
Hi, all….sorry am late….spent the morning providing testimony is a really frivolous lawsuit…..ugh!
But what I wanted to say was, THANKS TO TEDDY AND ALL OTHER BLOGGERS! A HUGE STANDING OVATION AND THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE (to the degree I might be huge and thunderous)!!!!!!
So — Those of you willing to venture a guess: Did the plaintiffs “win”? Won’t hold you to it, just curious how you view the balance of argument.
Well, it’s not over yet :)
In my view the plaintifs have won hands down, not only did the defence call few witnesses but their direct and redirect of their own witnessess was ineffectual and in many ways amaturish. As we saw their cross of the plaintifs witnesses was equally bad.
The plaintifs, guided by an expert David Boies, have presented mountains of hard and unassailable evidence. Mr. Boies direct and redirect of his own witnesses and hostile defense witnesses was skillfull and always iluminated the case. His cross of the defense witnesses was so skillfull as to leave the defense little to salvage on redirect. In many ways by the time Boies hand finished with a witness you might say he had managed to get a hostile witness to support the plaintiff’s case.
Yes the plaintifs have won but then I will admit to being biassed, being both MTF trans and lesbian.
The Plaintiff’s won HANDS DOWN
Fantastic work, Teddy! Thank you!
Anyone have Boies’ phone number…I just murdered my husband and am claiming insanity. He posted the words to Beyonce’s Single Lady on my facebook page and now that inane song will be going around in my head for the next 2 days. And I’m going to be stuck at home because of the ice storm hitting OK tomorrow!
I want to express my thanks and amazement at the work Teddy and Marcy (and any other helpers) have done. Even court reporters don’t type every letter of every word! You’ve nearly done the impossible, and I thank you for it. So glad you were able to make this awful/wonderful historic trial available to us in this format. (I’ve been intending to donate some $$ all along and just did.)
I’ve followed along every single day with the rest of you and read your comments, too. Reading this trial action has been one of the highlights of my life–seriously. Here’s hoping the law (SCOTUS, eventually) will not lag behind the justice needed
nowyears ago! Also thanks to my savvy son who provided the link to this site!Here’s another question for the lawyers and judges out there:
Presuming Walker hands down a decision favorable to Planitiffs and D-Is appeal to 9th Circuit, will it be to a panel or the whole bench? If it’s to a panel and they lose, can D-Is appeal to the whole bench or do they have the option of taking it straight to SCOTUS?
you tease!
Awwww! I pictured him saying it with teary eyes and a hurt look
Hello, Teddy and the rest of the Firedoglake team covering prop 8 – thank you for all your hard work. How frustrating it is that most people are following commentaries instead of reading the actual testimonies! I am extremely grateful for being able to observe a trial that is very important to me. To you I give my first donation to an independent journalist group. I look forward to the closing statements!
PS Boies beats most forms of entertainment :)