Oh, in the judgement, Walker shredded the "expert" defense witnesses. He went to great pains to make sure everyone who read the document understood why he couldn't accept their testimony. He called the defense's primary witness, Blankenhorn, "unreliable". Then there was this priceless statement: "Blankenhorn lacks the qualifications to offer opinion testimony and, in any event, failed to provide cogent testimony in support of proponents’ factual assertions." Blankenhorn has no peer-reviewed papers published, something else Walker documented. Walker went on to define what made an expert witness, complete with other court cases to back him up. And that's just the start of it.
The section where Walker rips Blankenhorn a new one is pdf pages 39-51, document 37-49. The entire section is a riot to read, esp. as an ex- argument instructor.
Walker was a bit more polite to Miller, but ended up dismissing much of what he had to say, too, on pretty much the same grounds of what an expert witness needs to be. Miller didn't have direct studies on homosexual issues, just governmental ones.
All I have to say is that the defense had better bring more qualified experts, or they're buttered toast with jam. Walker did a bang-up job closing holes in the argument.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
yati
Re: We are Legal Monkeys Too
Date: 2010-08-05 02:59 am (UTC)The section where Walker rips Blankenhorn a new one is pdf pages 39-51, document 37-49. The entire section is a riot to read, esp. as an ex- argument instructor.
Walker was a bit more polite to Miller, but ended up dismissing much of what he had to say, too, on pretty much the same grounds of what an expert witness needs to be. Miller didn't have direct studies on homosexual issues, just governmental ones.
All I have to say is that the defense had better bring more qualified experts, or they're buttered toast with jam. Walker did a bang-up job closing holes in the argument.