I mean a cross-examination question

Kash, owning stocks?
A little Warren Buffet in the making?

I'm not a litigator, so I might be wrong here, but simply asking the defendant "Isn't it true that you did X?" is a poor strategy, unless you have in your pocket some strong evidence to contradict their inevitable "uh, no."

Would someone please just say what everyone is already thinking....

Is the case before a Grande jury?

Zing!

Isn't it true you are part of the most entitled class of human beings on the planet? Is it not also true that you people love all things which cause diabetes and therefore would be inclined to order a mocha hazelnut whatever?

Non litigator, you are correct.

Might have turned out differently if it was a HOT drink instead.

"Isn't it true that you did X?" is a poor strategy, unless you have in your pocket some strong evidence to contradict their inevitable "uh, no." "

I suspect that there was testimony supporting the prosecutor's question by the other witnesses (e.g. the manager). I don't see anything improper in the question; if the defendant takes the stand there's nothing wrong with asking them to admit their guilt despite the fact that they'll probably deny it. Plenty of cases like this come down to a matter of credibility; it appears in this one that the jury believed the defendant.

9:52 - game, set and match.

Christ, 9:52, I guess it doesn't have anything to do with genetics. Three of my cousins, who are all under 10 happen to be white and not even close to being overweight and have diabetes. Thank god they have good health insurance. I guess higher white cancer rates have to do with our relative wealth, conspicuous consumerism, and addiction to the 'new car smell' which is actually aromatic carcinogenic compounds.

And I've had the same bitter coffee thing happen--I think sometimes they burn the coffee--the only time I had a barista give me a hard time was when I was wearing yoga pants and was a law student--when I wear a suit now that I'm an attorney I always get treated with respect and courtesy.

Maybe if you had black, brown, latino and asian friends, and sat down and compared how you were treated shopping at the same stores, you'd have a eureka moment. I didn't realize how bad things were until high school, when young black female friends of mine started telling me how servicepeople treated them when they went shopping. Considering the fact that I was a grungy white chick, and I was always treated well at stores where these well-dressed young ladies were treated appallingly or ignored, I started to put two and two togethr. I also learned about how cops treated them when they were out with non-black teenage friends. (Guess who the cops would focus on--the black girl! Even though I swear this particular girl always looked like a kidnergarten teacher, she was still treated like some kind of menace.)

10:16, Stop whatever you are doing and read this: http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/05/28/101-being-offended/

10:16, not to take a side in the underlying debate, but do you understand the difference between type I and type II diabetes?

As a proud Portlander all I can say is don't fuck up our coffee or you will get beat down.

The article made it sound as though the prosecutor was questioning the defendant about throwing coffee at herself--was that a misprint?

Starbucks is obviously a racist company based on this incident and everyone should boycott them until they change their racist ways.

Yes. Type I is due to your immune system attacking the islets of langerhans in your pancreas, which decreases the production of insulin, Type II involves "insulin resistance" which means that the insulin that is released in order to counteract high blood sugar doesn't have the same effect on the target cells that it could have.

BOTH have genetic components. Which is why you are wise not to take a side in the debate.

It is true that Type II is associated with obesity, but only in about half of all cases, and it isn't clear if it is correlational or causation. (Or if obesity isn't a side affect of the metabolic disorder that causes Type II diabetes.) If your body doesn't properly respond to sugar, is wouldn't be surprising if your disorded body sends you the 'eat more' signal when you've already eaten enough. Type II is probably higher because now most of us have access to enough food that if our body tells us to eat more, we can and will.

BTW, 10:24, it is offensive to take a post about a black woman and turn it into some racist rant about all black people. See my new car smell snark, for example.

10:48, nah, we should just mock 9:52 and not let racist stuff go down in front of us. And not deny it when it does happen.

I happen to like Starbucks, but I only order an unadorned espresso. (I hate he very word "Macchiato".)

Starbucks should have fired the manager instead of prosecuting the customer.

And someone needs to post the Starbucks security camera footage on You Tube.

That's not a drink, it's dessert.

11:28, that is a terrible pun. Your seed should be wiped from the earth.

Kash - your excerpted quotations don't do a very good job of telling the story. The events are a good deal more complicated and understandable in the full story as reported by the Oregonian. On your synopsis, it makes no sense that the perp was found not guilty. Overall, it sounds like a scammer-trainee outing or a sorority initiation rite gone bad, with the interesting extra issue of race mixed in. It's a good thing neither of them drank the coffee (or whatever it is Starbucks sells), however, or the damage would have been a lot greater.

10:40 has it right. This could be jury nullification, not a credibility judgment. A Portland jury vindicating the right to stand up for a decent cup of coffee.

On the other hand, I could also see them having no sympathy for anyone ordering such a ridiculous drink.

If you read the actual article you will find that they were fighting over the drink, with both of their hands on the cup, when it was spilled onto the manager. The manager claims she dumped it on him and she claims she merely let go and he dumped it on himself.

Since Starbucks didn't want to provide the video tape to show what actually happened, I don't see how the judge could have found other than reasonable doubt. It was clearly a he said/she said case and with guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as the standard he could not find her guilty.

Is it or is it not true that black people can't even order a cup of coffee without committing a crime?

How fat is she?

Nothing wrong with the cross-examination, in my opinion. First, it is an entirely reasonable tactic to use cross as an early version of your closing, reminding the jury what the defendant did through questions. Second, false exculpatory statements can have significant value. Anytime you can get a witness to state something that is not true, the witness's credibility will be hurt. In closing, the prosecutor just has to compare and contrast the statements made by the defendant (who has a huge interest in the outcome) with those of the percipient witnesses (who presumably have little riding on the outcome).

The manager lied in the 911 call, and said she threw hot coffee at him. What a bs case to bring to trial. And it sounds like the barista tried to hand her the coffee, and the manager intervened.

Plus, two free coffees in 11 mos. doesn't equal fraud. I've had starbucks screw up my coffee more than 2x in one month, let alone eleven. What a bunch of BS.

9:52/11:52/12:06--Go play in traffic.

uhh 11:49 - that's not the way the reasonable doubt standard works. There are tons of convictions in he said/she said cases. The fact finder can credit what she said and totally reject what he said. Happens all the time in criminal cases. If not, you'd need evidence of a struggle to convict a rapist.

Uh, 1:46pm, that is why our jury system is so screwed up. All you have to do is convince a few morons that you are right and the other guy is wrong rather than actually prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty. It should never be enough evidence to prove guilt in a criminal context from the testimony of a single witness with no supporting physical evidence or the testimony of other witnesses, period.

Based on the story in the Oregonian, it came down to two people's version of what happened with no significant other evidence available. Thus the judge's only choice was to find the woman not guilty.

Uh, 2:34, based on your standard, no one could be convicted of a crime if they committed it in front of no witnesses.

Like sucker-punching someone when the two of you are alone. 'But your honor, he hit me first' would be reasonable doubt in your book.

Ditto for oral contracts cases. Idiot.

"It should never be enough evidence to prove guilt in a criminal context from the testimony of a single witness with no supporting physical evidence or the testimony of other witnesses, period."

Good luck prosecuting date rape under this standard...

Uh, 2:45pm, you are the idiot.

I never said you had to have any witnesses, only that someone shouldn't ever be convicted of a crime based solely on the testimony of a single witness with no corroborating evidence.

In your first scenario, there would be corroborating evidence such as a bruise or other indication of injury. There could be other physical evidence as well. If there isn't, and the only evidence is testimony of the person who got punched (virtually impossible for this to happen), then no conviction.

Oral contracts have nothing to do with criminal law, idiot.

3:43pm, you can prosecute date rape all day long as long as you have some other evidence besides the testimony of a single witness. The risk of convicting someone wrongfully is just too high when that is all of the evidence there is. If you have to base a conviction on the credibility of a single witness, it is just too subjective. There are great liars out there.

No, 3:47, there isn't always evidence of a physical assault. Not everyone bruises, depending on where they are hit (and how hard), and if they claim the other guy hits them first---there you have it. Two unbruised guys, and two witnesses testifying. Or how about two scraped up guys? How do you determine who hit who first? (Guess what, we have convictions in cases like that every day.)

I see, so one witness is enough for civil, but not criminal, cases?

And I don't think a single rape conviction has been overturned because a single witness (who was believed) is lying. Usually it has to do with police doing a bad lineup.

No, 3:47, there isn't always evidence of a physical assault. Not everyone bruises, depending on where they are hit (and how hard), and if they claim the other guy hits them first---there you have it. Two unbruised guys, and two witnesses testifying. Or how about two scraped up guys? How do you determine who hit who first? (Guess what, we have convictions in cases like that every day.)

I see, so one witness is enough for civil, but not criminal, cases?

And I don't think a single rape conviction has been overturned because a single witness (who was believed) is lying. Usually it has to do with police doing a bad lineup.

4:24 -

If there is no further evidence or the additional evidence is inconclusive, then no conviction. There should be no exception. A criminal conviction should not EVER be based solely on the testimony of a single witness. The fact that convictions happen on such flimsy evidence is the problem.

The standard for civil cases is way, way lower than criminal cases, so yeah, a single witness is fine in that situation.

As for your last observation, I don't think you are correct. The fact is, people lie all the time.

I've read a lot of rape/wrongful conviction cases. I haven't read a single one that involved a deliberately untruthful witness.

By way of contrast, the no. 1 reason people are wrongly convicted of murder is the deliberately untruthful testimony of an eyewitness (who in some cases, is the actual perp.) But I suppose this lends support to your argument.

OTOH, some witnesses are such bad liars (in fact, I would say most are) that I really don't have a problem with finding that one witness's testimony is enough for BARD. Not that juries always get it right.

You've certainly given me something to think about.

2:34 "it came down to two people's version of what happened with no significant other evidence available. Thus the judge's only choice was to find the woman not guilty."

That's nonsense. it would mean that anytime there are conflicting stories the factfinder simply throws up his/her/its hands and says "reasonable doubt."

The notion that the testimony of a single witness is insufficient to convict has been rejected by every jurisdiction. In fact, in those cases, the prosecution usually gets an instruction reminding the jury that the testimony of a single witness is sufficient, if believed (and all the elements are covered by the testimony).

To my knowledge, the only crime that requires more than a single witness for conviction is treason, and the two witness rule has been loosely interpreted.

A Prosecutor

4:56, how would most rape cases be prosecuted if the testimony of one witness isn't enough? Should we follow the rule of some countries and demand that a victim have testimony from several (male) witnesses?

So in rape cases where the only contested issue is consent (usually a "date" rape case), there has to be some other evidence beside the victim's testimony? Should victims be sure they get some physical injuries to make sure they're believed? Sounds like a great idea.

I thought people moved to Portland to get away from the type of people who would be named Latasha.

10:29--please join the other three--that's right--and play in traffic. kaythxbye.

11:58, it's not racist to not want to live with people from the ghetto. People named Latasha are from the ghetto.

11:58 here---my suggestion still stands. You. Traffic. Now.