# data[].attributes.body
Great job of telling the story in a light that is more favorable to your party, as well as arguing that the CPO is best for everyone

# data[].attributes.body
Excellent tone and emphasis with gestures.

# data[].attributes.headline
Respondent did an effective job of repeating the steps Margaret Barnes took to get Anthony Spencer to leave and neutralize her as an emotional aggressor.

# data[].attributes.subject
Respondent did an effective job of repeating the steps Margaret Barnes took to get Anthony Spencer to leave and neutralize her as an emotional aggressor.

# data[].attributes.headline
Petitioner did an effective job of neutralizing Mr. Spencer as motivated to hurt (physically or through the CPO) Ms. Barnes.

# data[].attributes.subject
Petitioner did an effective job of neutralizing Mr. Spencer as motivated to hurt (physically or through the CPO) Ms. Barnes.

# data[].attributes.body
As petitioner, I could have incorporated more law into my closing

# data[].attributes.body
Great tone of voice and characterization of the facts

# data[].attributes.body
great job

# data[].attributes.body
Both side did not go into detail how the law plays into pleas from both sides. Need to incorporate the law bit more to make sure that it is clear on what ground the CPO is sought for

# data[].attributes.body
Continued Alienation and continued intrusion...this was what stood out. That this whole ordeal is just that. Good framing on that point. Good job in pointing put everything that Anthony didn't do. Closing statements turned Margaret into the victim and not Anthony.

# data[].attributes.body
Thought this was a well-framed argument by presenting it as a benefit to both parties

# data[].attributes.body
"unpredictable rage" was an interesting way to categorize it. Also pointing out that the CPO is in the interest of both parties, not only Anthony. Not only is the CPO to protect Anthony but it also to protect Margaret from herself (potential harm to others).

# data[].attributes.headline
Cross - the ending was very effective getting Margaret to agree that Anthony cared about kids and her dad. It makes him more likable and without motive to lie. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Cross - the ending was very effective getting Margaret to agree that Anthony cared about kids and her dad. It makes him more likable and without motive to lie. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Cross - you stayed strong when received an objection and answered calmly. That was very effective. (For future reference to impeach you want to commit to the statement on direct (you said not private); then credit the prior statement (you gave a deposition in this matter; swore to tell the truth; did tell the truth; reviewed the transcript from the deposition; had a chance to correct any errors; signed the deposition transcript as accurate; etc.); and then confront the witness with the statement in the depo (and here you CAN read the depo statement as long as it is directly contradictory to the statement on direct). We call this the Three Cs of Impeachment (Commit, credit, confront).)  I think the problem here is - as Dakorah argued in her objection - the statement on direct was not directly contradictory to the deposition statement. Better to ask smaller facts on cross that match up with the statement. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Cross - you stayed strong when received an objection and answered calmly. That was very effective. (For future reference to impeach you want to commit to the statement on direct (you said not private); then credit the prior statement (you gave a deposition in this matter; swore to tell the truth; did tell the truth; reviewed the transcript from the deposition; had a chance to correct any errors; signed the deposition transcript as accurate; etc.); and then confront the witness with the statement in the depo (and here you CAN read the depo statement as long as it is directly contradictory to the statement on direct). We call this the Three Cs of Impeachment (Commit, credit, confront).)  I think the problem here is - as Dakorah argued in her objection - the statement on direct was not directly contradictory to the deposition statement. Better to ask smaller facts on cross that match up with the statement. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Cross - good establishment of family relationship by blood and marriage for laying claim for the necessary relationship under the law for an intrafamily violence offense.

# data[].attributes.subject
Cross - good establishment of family relationship by blood and marriage for laying claim for the necessary relationship under the law for an intrafamily violence offense.

# data[].attributes.headline
Direct - good way of making sure the facts were rejected by Margaret that could be used for each legal element for an intrafamily violence offense 0 not act punishable as a crime. No threat to commit such an act. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Direct - good way of making sure the facts were rejected by Margaret that could be used for each legal element for an intrafamily violence offense 0 not act punishable as a crime. No threat to commit such an act. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Even though Margaret didn't remember everything after her arms out - she listed a few things - fuzzy he lunged at me, I hit my head, I was scared, I stumbled back. It could have been very effective to go back to each step and ask her more questions on each one to get as much visual detail out to bring that scene to life.

# data[].attributes.subject
Even though Margaret didn't remember everything after her arms out - she listed a few things - fuzzy he lunged at me, I hit my head, I was scared, I stumbled back. It could have been very effective to go back to each step and ask her more questions on each one to get as much visual detail out to bring that scene to life.

# data[].attributes.headline
Direct exam - good job listning to witness and looping off of testimony from witness to ask next question.

# data[].attributes.subject
Direct exam - good job listning to witness and looping off of testimony from witness to ask next question.

# data[].attributes.headline
The direct went step by step and piece by piece which was effective for telling a story.

# data[].attributes.subject
The direct went step by step and piece by piece which was effective for telling a story.

# data[].attributes.headline
Good form of questions for direct and cross

# data[].attributes.subject
Good form of questions for direct and cross

# data[].attributes.body
Good job illustrating the nature of the relationship and Anthony's usual behavior when he usually comes to the house. It shows the contrast between previous visits to this one.

# data[].attributes.body
Good job of asking questions to illustrate that Mr. Spencer hasn't acted this way before and cares a lot for the family, as well as the fact that Ms. Barnes trusted him - these points combat the Respondent's theory that Mr. Spencer is essentially out to get Ms. Barnes.

# data[].attributes.body
Did a nice job of showing Ms. Barnes point of view. Good job with objections as well

# data[].attributes.body
Balancing impeachment while also maintaining credibility

# data[].attributes.body
Did a good job of talking about how Ms. Barnes felt and walking through the day of the incident

# data[].attributes.headline
Cross got in very good helpful facts that hadn't come out on direct - like the loud knocking and Anthony's lack of (memorable) employment!

# data[].attributes.subject
Cross got in very good helpful facts that hadn't come out on direct - like the loud knocking and Anthony's lack of (memorable) employment!

# data[].attributes.headline
Both sides, don't forget to object to questions if (1) there is an evidence rule to support the objection; and (2) an objection furthers your case theory.

# data[].attributes.subject
Both sides, don't forget to object to questions if (1) there is an evidence rule to support the objection; and (2) an objection furthers your case theory.

# data[].attributes.headline
When conducting cross, don't be afraid to impeach with a prior inconsistent statement - he did say verbal altercation in his statement and then said it wasn't that on direct.

# data[].attributes.subject
When conducting cross, don't be afraid to impeach with a prior inconsistent statement - he did say verbal altercation in his statement and then said it wasn't that on direct.

# data[].attributes.body
i think there were times where both sides could have pressed the witness a little harder

# data[].attributes.headline
Good narrative questions - why, when, how long - in the direct.

# data[].attributes.subject
Good narrative questions - why, when, how long - in the direct.

# data[].attributes.headline
In general, great forms of the questions in direct and cross.

# data[].attributes.subject
In general, great forms of the questions in direct and cross.

# data[].attributes.headline
The direct did a great job of making the day of 3/23 very clear - from the morning to the steps at each point in the confrontation between Margaret and Anthony

# data[].attributes.subject
The direct did a great job of making the day of 3/23 very clear - from the morning to the steps at each point in the confrontation between Margaret and Anthony

# data[].attributes.headline
Both direct and cross were case theory driven

# data[].attributes.subject
Both direct and cross were case theory driven

# data[].attributes.headline
For cross I recommend trying to use small facts. I think the witness was able to wiggle out when there were characterizations in the questions.

# data[].attributes.subject
For cross I recommend trying to use small facts. I think the witness was able to wiggle out when there were characterizations in the questions.

# data[].attributes.body
Good job taking the witness through the day chronologically and good specific open-ended questioning

# data[].attributes.body
Good job emphasizing that Mr. Spencer was asked to leave several times and refused

# data[].attributes.body
Would have liked more emphasis on bruce/anthony's individual friendship so it legitimizes anthony's insistence on checking on him

# data[].attributes.body
The witness did a good job of deflecting and carefully wording answers.

# data[].attributes.body
good job in pointing put the size difference between Margaret and Anthony

# data[].attributes.body
Good job getting the facts out and why Mr. Spencer was worried for Mr. Green's safety
Maybe could have touched more on Ms. Barnes lack of judgment regarding health and safety since her daughter's death

# data[].attributes.body
Great use of facts in opening but perhaps too much detail. The opening case theory of unstable and worried for safety could have been built into how the story was constructed more. Good to have ask at end.

# data[].attributes.body
Strong case theory and argument-driven at the beginning. Near end argued law and argued characterizations which is appropriate for closing - and would be great in closing.

# data[].attributes.body
Short and a recitation of the facts. Some storytelling.

# data[].attributes.body
Did a good job tying the findings from the neglect case into this case

# data[].attributes.body
It was short but factual. Not much story telling or emotional pull.

# data[].attributes.body
Told a good story of how Ms. Barnes feels at the mercy of the system and her family.

# data[].attributes.body
It was short, but got tot he point. Included just enough facts and showed how Margaret is the one to blame by painting the story from her perspective

# data[].attributes.body
Was very well organized. It was also very fact-based. Could have done more story telling

# data[].attributes.body
It painted a narrative and provided context for what happened

# data[].attributes.headline
A lot of emphasis on witness testimony, less so on overarching themes

# data[].attributes.subject
A lot of emphasis on witness testimony, less so on overarching themes

# data[].attributes.body
It seem like just a recitation of the facts. I was looking for a different type of storytelling, that tied into the case theory. It was a good to hear the entire story, though