Telebay Product & Service Links

Service Links

Trinsic (Residential)                                        http://www.telebay.com/ofr/trinsic.html

MCI  (The Neighborhood & Business Complete)    
                                                            http://www.telebay.com/ofr/mci-home.html

                                                            http://www.telebay.com/ofr/mci-biz.html

                                                            http://www.telebay.com/ofr/mci.html


Spectrotel                                             http://www.telebay.com/ofr/spectrotel.html

Blue Casa                                              http://www.telebay.com/ofr/bluecasa.html

Cleartel                                                 http://www.telebay.com/ofr/cleartel.html

Tel3                                                      http://www.telebay.com/ofr/tel3.html

Opex LD
                                                            http://www.telebay.com/ofr/opexld.html

Opex Internet Voice                              http://www.telebay.com/ofr/opexvoip.html

Pioneer LD                                            http://www.telebay.com/ofr/pioneer.html

Packet8                                                http://www.telebay.com/ofr/packet8.html

SunRocket                                            http://www.telebay.com/ofr/sunrocket.html

VoipNet                                                http://www.telebay.com/ofr/voipnet.html

Lingo                                                    http://www.telebay.com/ofr/lingo.html

Vonage                                                 http://www.telebay.com/ofr/vonage.html

Liberty Wireless                                    http://www.telebay.com/ofr/compareprepay.html#Liberty

Opex Wireless                                       http://www.telebay.com/ofr/opexwireless.html

                                                            http://www.telebay.com/ofr/compareprepay.html#Opex

Venture Mobile                                      http://www.telebay.com/ofr/venture.html

                                                            http://www.telebay.com/ofr/compareprepay.html#Venture

Cellular**

(T-Mobile, Cingular, Alltel, Verizon, Sprint PCS, Nextel)

                                                            http://www.telebay.com/ofr/cell.html

Telebay Dial-Up ISP                               http://www.telebay.com/ofr/isp.html

Broadband                                            http://www.telebay.com/ofr/broadband.html

eFax                                                    http://www.telebay.com/ofr/efax.html

Key Words & Phrases

Ancillary Hearing Any hearing other than the trial. Sometimes called a preliminary hearing.

Bailiff The person responsible for maintaining decorum in the Court.

Bench The place where the Judge sits during the trial.

Bench Trial A trial where the judge determines all fact issues and there is no jury.

Chambers The Judge office.

Case in Chief The testimony and evidence offered by one side in support of that side positions.

Clerk One of the persons who handles the paperwork of the Court.

Closing Statements Final statements by each attorney at the end of the trial when they argue to the Court the evidence and law.

Court Often used interchangeably with Judge.

Court Reporter The person who records the testimony and court proceedings.

Cross-Examination Questions asked of witnesses called by the opposing attorney.

Decree of Divorce The final order which is signed by the judge disposing of all issues. Sometimes called the Final Judgement.

Direct Examination Questions asked of witnesses called by that attorney.

Final Judgment The final order which is signed by the judge disposing of all issues. Sometimes called the Final Decree of Divorce.

Invoking the Rule The process of requiring all witnesses after than parties, to leave the courtroom and not discuss their testimony with anyone but the attorneys involved.

Jury Box The place where the jurors sit during the trial.

Non-Responsive When referring to the answer to a question, the answer goes beyond the question and the witness has volunteered information.

Objection Notice to the judge by one attorney that the proceedings are objectionable for some reason and the attorney wants to bring it to the attention of the judge and request a ruling.

Overruledmeans the judge disagrees with the objecting attorney.

Sustained means that the judge agrees with the objecting.

Opening Statement A brief statement by an attorney of his client position on the issues and applicable law, generally at the beginning of the trial.

Order A ruling by the Court.

Petitioner The party who initially brings or files the divorce or an action. Opposite party to the Respondent.

Preliminary Hearing Any hearing other than the trial. Sometimes called an ancillary hearing.

Rebuttal Testimony which rebuts or refutes prior testimony.

Recess A period of time when court is not in session.

Rendition The pronouncement of the court final ruling, which may be oral or written.

Respondent The against whom the divorce is initially filed. Opposite party to the Petitioner.

Stipulations Agreements made between the parties and/or their attorneys which are binding.

Subpoena A document served on a witness ordering that person to appear at a certain time and place to testify and/or designated documents.

Swearing In Taking the witness oath to tell the truth.

Trial The final hearing which decides all issues of the case.

Under Advisement A period of time after the trial when the Judge considers the testimony, evidence and his notes and makes his final decision about the issues.

Witness Stand The place from which the witness testifies.

Cross Examination Impeachment of A Witness One of the most effective ways of impeaching a witness at trial is through the use of depositions and inconsistent statements. Unfortunately, many trial attorneys do not know how to properly impeach using depositions and inconsistent statements. This results in embarrassing situations for those attorneys.

Depositions When a witness makes a statement in trial that is inconsistent with his or her deposition testimony, you should first highlight the question that was answered differently at trial. Make sure that the trial testimony being impeached is a direct inconsistent statement with the deposition given before trial. You should then ask the following questions:

Do you remember having had your deposition taken on (state the date)?
Do you remember that a court reporter was present at your deposition?
Do you remember having been sworn in to tell the truth?
Did you tell the truth on that date?
(If applicable) Do you remember having your attorney present at your deposition?
After you have set the foundation for the impeachment, then you should ask the witness the following question: "Do you remember having been asked the following question and your giving the following answer." At this point, you should read the question previously asked and the answer given by the witness in the deposition.

Use of Inconsistent Statements in Documents A similar method may be used to impeach a person using an inconsistent statement in a document such as an affidavit, sworn statement or letter. The trial attorney should first highlight the inconsistent trial testimony that will be impeached. Next, the lawyer should identify and authenticate the document that will show the inconsistent statement given by that same witness. In order to establish the foundation necessary to impeach an individual with the use of an inconsistent statement, the witness should be asked the following questions:

Do you remember having given a statement to (person) regarding how the accident occurred?
Did you give that statement freely?
Who was present when you gave your statement?
When was the statement given?
The witness should then be shown the exhibit and asked the following question: I show you what has been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit "A" for identification. Is this a copy of your sworn statement?

Finally, read the relevant portion of the statement that directly contradicts the trial testimony of the witness.

Impeachment through the use of depositions or documented inconsistent statements should be accomplished in an organized fashion and should be performed smoothly and directly. The relevant pages and sections of the deposition should be marked and highlighted beforehand so as not to fumble through pages or lose control of the witness.

There is nothing more impressive than to see an attorney properly impeach a witness through the use of inconsistent statements in documents or in a deposition. It is a very simple procedure to learn and, once mastered, will prove to be an effective means of cross-examining even the most "dangerous" witness at trial.

Expert Witness At trial, there may be nothing more challenging and dangerous than cross-examining an expert witness. The lawyer about to cross-examine an expert witness needs to be very careful and very well prepared prior to cross-examining the expert. One of the problems that the trial practitioner encounters in attempting to effectively cross-examine an expert is that the expert usually controls the testimony by being very knowledgeable in the area he is testifying about. What makes it more difficult is that the lawyer usually is not as well versed in the subject as the expert. Nevertheless, an attorney may successfully cross-examine an expert witness by zeroing in on the weaknesses of the expert or of the expert's testimony and exposing them to the jury.

A trial attorney preparing to cross-examine an expert witness should first read and summarize the deposition taken of the expert witness in the case or read and summarize prior depositions given by that same expert in other cases. You will probably find many helpful statements in the prior depositions that will assist you in your case. Additionally, research whether the expert has written any articles, books or editorials that may contradict his opinion in your case. Next, determine what school the expert has graduated from and see if any of the professors that taught the expert have different opinions that may be introduced and compared to the expert's opinion at trial.

A trial attorney should be thoroughly prepared on the subject that will be the basis of the cross-examination. It is not advisable to directly challenge an expert within his or her field. However, it is always very helpful to be knowledgeable in the area so that if the expert's testimony deviates from the accepted norm, you may expose him or her as an advocate or as a hired gun.

A trial attorney should always cross-examine an expert witness. There is nothing worse then allowing an expert witness to give his opinions without challenge. The jury may believe that by failing to cross-examine the expert you have accepted the expert's opinion.

The most effective way of beginning cross-examination is to affect or attempt to affect the expert witness's credibility. To do this, you should attempt to expose the expert's. The expert witness will either be biased because of friendship, money or his relationship with the attorney or the attorney's client. Bringing this out to the jury's attention by using short precise leading questions will be very helpful. Attempt to point out, if possible, the disproportionate amount of time in court which the expert spends in comparison to the amount of time he spends in his given field of expertise. Additionally, point out the number of times that the expert witness has testified on behalf of the particular opposing lawyer or the lawyer's law firm. Point out the number of times the expert has testified for parties that stand for similar things, for example, insurance companies, large manufacturers, or big businesses.

After you have exposed the expert's bias, you should attempt to attack his qualifications. No matter how qualified an expert witness may be in a given field, there are probably levels in his field that the expert has not reached. For example, if the expert witness only has a masters degree, you may point out that he lacks a Ph.D. in his given field. Moreover, do not do this if your expert does not have a Ph.D. in his given field. If applicable, you should point out that the expert witness has not published any articles in his learned field, or has not held any teaching positions in colleges or universities. Obviously, you need to discover this information before cross examining the expert witness. One way of learning this background information is by obtaining the expert's curriculum vitae or detailed resume well in advance of the trial. Another inexpensive way of attaining information on experts is by serving expert interrogatories on your opponent.

Another way of effectively cross examining an expert witness is by making the expert your witness. If you are able to have the opposing expert testify as to general principles that are consistent with your theory of the case, you will have succeeded in your cross-examination. While this may be very difficult to accomplish if the expert is honest and if the questions that you are asking are basic leading question which cannot be denied, you have a good chance of prevailing as the expert will have to admit the facts suggested in your question or appear foolish.

Another way of successfully cross-examining the expert witness is by attacking the expert's facts. You will always be able to point out that the expert received his facts and materials from the opposing attorney. Use this to your advantage and use hypothetical questions in order to change the facts so that they are consistent with your theory of the case; then, ask the expert controlled questions within the restricted scenarios that you have presented. This will allow you to tell your version of the case through the opposing expert. Be very careful when you do this so as not to allow the expert too much room when testifying. You should present the hypothetical question in long detailed factual patterns followed by a direct leading question relating to the factually restricted hypothetical. Even if the expert refuses to provide you with a favorable response, you have told the jury your story repeatedly by using the hypothetical question.

Although there are many ways to effectively cross-examine an opposing expert, you should only choose two or three areas of attack at trial. If you try all of them you will probably make the cross examination too lengthy or overly confusing. Moreover, the longer an opposing expert witness is on the stand, the greater the likelihood that the expert will hurt your case. Therefore, when cross-examining the opposing expert, be prepared, be thorough, hit your two or three areas of attack, expose the expert's weak points, then politely thank the expert and sit down.other way to successfully cross-examine the expert witness is by impeaching the expert with an article, journal or chapter of a book from his field. In your research, you will probably find positions and opinions that are contrary to the expert witness's opinion. Attempt to have the expert witness agree that the author of the article, book, or treatise is authoritative or at least a well recognized expert in the field. Next, identify the article, and read the relevant portions that contradict the opinion of the expert. Finally, ask the expert if he agrees with the statement that you just read. It does not matter whether the expert agrees or disagrees, you have effectively demonstrated to the jury that other published experts do not agree with the opposing witness's position.

Finally, if you consider yourself to be extremely knowledgeable and an expert in the opposing expert's field, you may attempt to directly attack him. Be extremely cautious as this is very difficult and dangerous. You should only attempt this if you are sure that you will succeed, or if the expert has made an obvious error in his investigation or in his calculations. Before attacking an expert "head on," you should confer with your own expert to make sure that the direct attack will be successful.

Direct Examination A successful direct examination can be accomplished by controlling the witness without hampering her ability to testify freely, truthfully and honestly. This balance can only be reached by thoroughly preparing for the questioning.

Preparing For The Direct To prepare the direct examination, you should: review the law; determine what essential elements must be proven through each witness; and list the facts and elements that will be established through the witness. Next, you should outline all of the key points that must come out through the testimony of each witness that you are presenting at trial. The outline should set up the foundation necessary for additional testimony, expert testimony or the introduction of exhibits.

You should prepare a file for each witness. The file should include your outline, copies of the exhibits that will be used with the witness, the relevant deposition, trial subpoena, return of process, and any working notes that you may have that relate to the witness.

Prepare to meet with the witness at least one week before the trial in order to evaluate the witness's personality, ability to speak, and manner of dressing. Provide the witness with some suggestions on how she should dress at trial, and how she should handle herself before the jury. Go over the expected testimony with the witness so that you may cover the key points, the evidentiary foundations necessary to be established at trial as well as any problem areas that may be encountered during the case. If the deposition of the witness has been taken, give the witness an opportunity to read the deposition well before she takes the stand.

If you are going to ask a witness to work with an exhibit, chart, or other demonstrative aid, allow the witness to see the chart or model before the trial so that the witness will appear comfortable with the exhibit by the trial date. Make sure you show the witness any exhibits that will be introduced to her well before the witness takes the stand.

Establish a good relationship with the witness by being considerate and pleasant to work with. Make arrangements to meet with the witness again right before the witness takes the stand. During this second pre-trial meeting, you should briefly go over the essential points and answer any questions that the witness may have.

Anticipate evidentiary objections to your direct examination and research the law so that you may present a solid argument to defeat them. Be prepared to proffer the excluded testimony on the record outside of the presence of the jury if the objection is sustained.

Direct Examination at Trial During the trial, develop the direct examination through the use of conversational language. Avoid reading questions to the witness. This will bore the jury and leave them with the feeling that the presentation was rehearsed. You may have your outline present, but use it only as a reference and not as a script. Remember to guide the witness through the testimony so that she does not ramble.

Consider mentally placing yourself in the shoes of a news reporter or investigator at the scene of a breaking story. Wipe out the knowledge that you have of the case and attempt to become educated on the issues through the witness on the stand. Ask the types of questions that a reporter or investigator would ask to become fully informed of what happened in the case. This technique will allow you to view the case from the jury's perspective. Remember you may know everything about the case, but the jury is hearing the testimony for the first time at trial.

The jury's focus of the direct examination should be on the witness and not on you. Unlike cross-examination, you should limit your use of leading questions during a direct examination. The majority of questions should be open-ended allowing the witness to provide the answer. If you are having a hard time formulating a proper question, start your question with, who, what, why, when, where and how.

Although leading questions are generally not permitted on direct examination, there are many exceptions to this rule. Leading questions may be used during a direct examination in the following situations: (1) preliminary matters such as a person's name, address, and background; (2) undisputed facts, for example: "I would like to direct your attention to October 23, 1995, you were in Paris on that day were you not?"; (3) an adverse or hostile witness; (4) when a witness has difficulty in speaking; (5) when necessary to refresh a witness's recollection; and (6) when encountering an unwilling, reluctant, or recalcitrant witness.

Avoid repeating the witness's answer, as well as the use of "habit" utterances such as "uh- huh", "okay", "alright", etc. Try not to jingle your keys or pocket change when questioning. Do not play with your pen, curl your hair or create any other physical distractions that will take the jury's attention away from the witness. Stay focused on the questions, listen to the answers and appear very interested.

Do not use a monotone. Instead, change the tone of your voice based upon the importance of the testimony. Highlight the key points of the testimony with the use of voice inflection. Avoid legalese, speak clearly and to the point. Use action words and "word pictures," adjectives and adverbs in presenting your questions. Attempt to establish a rhythm with the witness and vary your pace so that the testimony is interesting to the jury. This will make your presentation powerful. Open and close the direct examination with the strongest testimony. Jury psychologists have established that jurors remember best what is heard first and last. Anticipate and isolate the troubling testimony in the middle of the presentation. Placing the difficult part of the testimony in the middle allows you to diffuse your opposition's anticipated cross-examination.

At the end of the examination, thank the witness and sit down. Attempt to appear confident during the entire cross-examination.

Conclusion A direct examination must appear fresh, interesting, flowing, and conversational. This sounds easy, but requires a lot of work, research and preparation. Never underestimate the importance of the direct examination. Set aside enough time in your trial preparation to properly prepare for an effective direct of each witness you anticipate to call at trial. A strong direct examination is an important building block that will lead to your success at trial.