Deep into the night – the cat’s restless and so am I. I cannot for the life of me decide what to do about my criminal procedure case and how to proceed on with cross examination. There are so many routes to take but I am nervous in dropping any one. Is this commonsensical? Does it have to be commonsensical without the jury? Is this all too theoretical? Should I take a leap of faith with the judge? Do I go hard on the prosecution? Am I being presumptuous in bringing a third party, X, which I had always scoffed about in cheesy American law dramas? I am suddenly in a bubble with my two witnesses.
My instinct tells me to go a certain way, but it is all too easy. You will laugh at me. I believe you will laugh at me. But the evidence points this way. Should I compromise, then, and go down the route most laypersons would understand? But the evidence calls for, demands, the ludicrous route. The evidence calls for, the ludicrous, theoretical route.
So what is criminal procedure supposed to be? I wish someone would answer these answers- but at 3am, I sometimes feel like I am talking and thinking in a vacumn. I wish I had more normal working hours and a normal working mind that can eat waffles properly at 8am in the morning and pick someone’s brain while I’m at at.
But it actually feels better writing all these, even though the reader most probably will never understand. Irving, I wish you were awake, to share all these confusing questions with me. I wish you were on the same law course too so I can pick your brilliant law brain more often and discover sudden commonsensical parts to myself which don’t belong to a red herring cloud.
In the meanwhile, I shall take off to do something much more straight-forward like civil procedure or cat-stomach-rubbing.