{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Voices at Temple","provider_url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices","title":"Yell, Compel, or Soft-Sell: How Blatant Must Cross-Examination Be? - Voices at Temple","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"eiX5AVj61s\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/yell-compel-soft-sell-blatant-must-cross-examination\/\">Yell, Compel, or Soft-Sell: How Blatant Must Cross-Examination Be?<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/yell-compel-soft-sell-blatant-must-cross-examination\/embed\/#?secret=eiX5AVj61s\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"&#8220;Yell, Compel, or Soft-Sell: How Blatant Must Cross-Examination Be?&#8221; &#8212; Voices at Temple\" data-secret=\"eiX5AVj61s\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/\/# sourceURL=https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/cms\/wp-includes\/js\/wp-embed.min.js\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/Megaphone.png","thumbnail_width":840,"thumbnail_height":560,"description":"Among Irving Younger\u2019s commandments were the well-known dictates of \u201cbe brief\u201d and \u201csave the ultimate point of your cross for summation.\u201d The latter was the model for an eyewitness cross-examination at a recent training on litigating mistaken identification cases, but when we polled the mock jury one of its members \u2013 discussing the cross \u2013 said \u201cI had no idea what the lawyer was doing or what his purpose was.\u201d It was only one juror, and others \u2018got it,\u2019 but the experience gave me pause. The question was, and remains \u2013 is it better to make your points and leave the rest for closing; or must we re-examine Younger\u2019s proscription and \u2018push\u2019 the point more explicitly? Let me first present the cross as delivered and then the analysis. The cross was designed to make three essential points: that the witness had barely any time to view the perpetrator (and was looking at the gun rather than the robber\u2019s face); that police \u2018bad practices\u2019 created the false memory; and that the accused did not fit the &hellip;"}