Question about legal/hearing strategy... [View all]

I would venture a guess that the witnesses today had maybe 2-3 hrs? of valuable testimony.

Why do we keep people so long? Why would you do that, as a trial/hearing strategy?

Strikes me that it frees up time for opposition to riff. Why wouldn't you say, these witnesses have a finite involvement? And zero in on exactly what they can offer that is pertinent? In my mind too, if you don't do that you run the risk of voters tuning out and the key points they offer being lost?

Not dissing anyone just don't get it. Not looking for "it was great" comments but legal strategy perspectives