ilikepieOlO
contestada

In the lesson, you played the role of a juror in the case of State v. Justin B. Goode. In that case, when the defense attorney cross-examined Suss Pihshawn, his goal was to (3 points) question the police officer and challenge the evidence against Mr. Goode meet with Suss Pihshawn to discuss strategy without the jury around meet with Suss Pihshawn to discuss what verdict he will recommend question the police officer and challenge the evidence against the state

Respuesta :

garnpancakes

A defense attorney works for the accused, Mr. Good. So the only answer possibles is "question the police officer and challenge the evidence against Mr. Goode"

Whoever Pihshawn is, the jury is around because cross-examination is carried in the trial, in court, so option 2 is not possible; and option 3 is not ogical either because a cross-examination is not needed to discuss veredicts. The last option is not correct because as the defense attorney any evidence of wrondoing by the state is a good thing, you wouldn't challenge it.

Answer/Explanation:

"Question the police officer and challenge the evidence against Mr. Goode" is the correct option. In this simulation, the defense attorney representing Mr. Goode is cross-examining Suss Pihshawn, the prosecution’s witness. Cross-examination happens when a witness is questioned by the opponent’s lawyer. The goal is for the lawyer to challenge the evidence brought against his client, Mr. Goode.

Otras preguntas