Immediately after the
opening comes the evidence, which is usually bald, fragmentary, and
disconnected. It might be impossible for the jury to understand the
relation of one bit of testimony to another. Take a simple case such
as a suit for the failure to pay a bill at a dry-goods store. One
witness testifies to the sale, another to the packing of the goods,
another to the delivery; a receipt is introduced in evidence. Each one
would not tell a connected story. The opening outlines the facts and
makes the evidence understandable. It also has the function of an
appetizer. This may seem a trifle unnecessary. But let us take an
illustration. A whole case may depend upon a deed. If the paper itself
were put in and read to the jury without explanation they would be
bored. One witness is to tell this part of the story, another that,
and the missing link of the chain may be supplied by the deed. The
jury are not to be mystified before their interest is aroused. Are not
the lives, property, or reputations of particular men at stake? The
ordinary man and even more the average juryman has far too strong a
sense of responsibility to be bored if truly he can understand what it
is all about.
Pages:
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110