jm: why is it that you felt so strongly that you felt the need to coddle her by giving her books and apologizing
objection sustained
jm: why is it that you felt the need to do that?
objection overruled
alv: want a complete answer?
jm: I want an answer to my question? why need to do that when you could have built rapport another way
alv: saw it as a respectful way, it's important for people to see that you respect them regardless of the accusation, basic to a human being, chose that way to do it, it's not something I planned, it happened when I was there. when I bought the book I was on the case for a year and a half, done that for other clients because jail is boring, done it with people I don't know, it's part of what I do, see it as preventative
jm: how many other times have you testified at trial in a criminal case?
alv: (counts slowly): not certain, testified 18 times altogether other than this trial, some family cases, less than ten criminal cases
jm: in those ten cases, did you apologize to everyone of those defendands when you went to see them
alv: didn't read their private
different way to approach these things, I reduced my fees in some cases, it's the way I work, no one-size-fits-all approach, look at the person I'm dealing with
jm: are you done?
alv: I'm done
jm: how many of those people did you apologize to on the first meeting
objection overruled
alv: don't know, first case was 1984, don't know. unlikely due to different circumstances
jm: so different case where you could have shown respect a different way
alv: seemed like a good way in this case to show respect in the beginning by apologizing
jm: but there are different way of showing it, could have sat across from her and talk in respectful way, right?
alv: I did
jm: showed her you're respectful, right?
alv: yes
jm: 90% of conversation is nonverbal, right?
alv: yes
jm: if you really wanted to show her respect, if 90% is nonverbal, you didn't have to say anything at all
objection overruled
alv: untrue
jm: so you felt that those were the only exceptions to 90% rule
alv: no, that's not true
alv: 90% you start by someone with talking before you can assess body language
jm: spent 44 hour on this case, time to asses body language
alv: not in 5 minutes
jm: noone forced you to apologize first 5 minutes
alv: no
jm: you told me it was in the first 5 minutes
alv: don't know if in first 5 minutes, did it relatively soon, had no prior basis for communications, did I have to make apology? you could say no, I say it was good and respectful thing to do, you can argue but it was the right decision to me
jm: how long was the first meeting?
alv: 8 hours
jm: you could have through your body language after maybe 1-2 hours conveyed to her through nonverbal conversation that you're respectful, didn't have to immediately apologize
alv: no
jm: could have waited, see if she was going to trust you
alv: why is this an issue?
jm: judge, she's non-responsive
sustained
jm: it was not necessary to apologize right away because you spend 8 hours with her
alv: felt that it was necessary
jm: I understand but you were not compelled
objection sustained