# Does anyone know how this court law works in this scenario?



## ironpony (Mar 4, 2016)

I was wondering of how this law works for a court scenario I thought up, to see if it would work this way, as I have asked a couple of people who have taken, but they said they are not sure for my scenario.

Let's say a witness, witness A, is going to testify in a criminal case, but another witness in the case, witness B, is going to testify against the defendant, and his testimony, although against the defendant, will incriminate witness A.

If witness A is forced to testify, via subpoena, can she get immunity from being charged with a crime, if another witness is going to incriminate her in the process of his testimony against the defendant?  Now the prosecutor will already have read what witness B is going to say, based on his previous statement, but witness A is still asking for immunity.   Plus the defendant's attorney could ask witness B a question that would pertain to witness A that a prosecutor may not see coming, in which case, A will have to ask for immunity first.

Let's say this is true and she can get immunity for this in exchange for her testimony. Witness B testifies and incriminates her, but she has immunity from being charged. After the case is over, will the police be able to investigate her for the crime, if the method of discovering her crime, was through the testimony if a witness she was given immunity from?

Immunity means you cannot be charged with the crime if the crime is discovered through the testimony of the witness you are immune from? But are the police allowed to use the information in the testimony to investigate her after?

Because if immunity means you cannot be charged, does it mean that an investigation can also not legally come out if it? Does immunity from prosecution also legally equate to immunity from investigation, if the only way the police know about the crime, is through the witness, that the person was legally immune from?

Does anyone know? I cannot find a law that is this specific of a scenario and how it would legally go down.  Thanks for the input.  I really appreciate it.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Mar 4, 2016)

Where? The law in this area may work differently in different countries. The USA is much given to plea bargaining, the UK tends not to indulge. Neither jurisdiction can force a witness to incriminate himself - _Pleading the 5th_ is I believe the American expression. I would guess that if Witness A's crime is relatively insignificant compared to the main event, then they may agree immunity, but if no immunity is granted, the witness is unlikely to be allowed not to give testimony, and anyway, even if Witness A didn't, Witness B's testimony could result in a later case. The prosecution will probably raise Witness A's case when in the box and, were he to refuse to answer on the grounds that he may incriminate himself, then it will only serve to confirm Witness B's subsequent testimony. Witness A may think it a good tactical move to admit his offence "_For the greater good,_" which may gain him some leeway with a court should he subsequently be indicted. But remember, the leagal system is not based on common-sense, only the letter of the law.


----------



## ironpony (Mar 4, 2016)

Sorry I meant the U.S.  So basically witness A is not legally entitled to immunity at all, and still has to testify, even if another witness may incriminate her, in the case.  In my story though, the proseutor does not know what witness A's crime is though.  They think she is innocent of any crime that they know of, but then she asks for immunity saying that another witness who is testifying in the case, might incriminate her.  She does not admit to anyone crime, just that she could be incriminated in some crime.

So will a prosecutor agree to a plea bargain, if he has no idea what witness A's crime was?


----------



## aj47 (Mar 4, 2016)

"has to" is relative.  We don't torture witnesses in the US.


----------



## ironpony (Mar 4, 2016)

I mean 'has to' as in they will be held in contempt of court if they don't, since they were subpoenaed to.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Mar 4, 2016)

ironpony said:


> Sorry I meant the U.S.  So basically witness A is not legally entitled to immunity at all, and still has to testify, even if another witness may incriminate her, in the case.  In my story though, the proseutor does not know what witness A's crime is though.  They think she is innocent of any crime that they know of, but then she asks for immunity saying that another witness who is testifying in the case, might incriminate her.  She does not admit to anyone crime, just that she could be incriminated in some crime.
> 
> So will a prosecutor agree to a plea bargain, if he has no idea what witness A's crime was?



No, that's not what I said. It would be a matter of agreement with the prosecution; entitlement doesn't come in to it, and no prosecuter would agree to immunity blind, he might find he's given a free pass to a mass murder. If, for instance, the prosecution would fail without the testimony of _Witness A_, then it would be essential that it is heard; the problem then would be, should _Witness B_ even be called. as he might destroy the credibility of _Witness A_ and therefore collapse the case.

So, your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to balance the importance to the case of the two major witnesses; could the prosecution succeed with evidence only from _Witness B_? If not, how can you lessen the relevance/importance of the wrongdoings of _Witness A_ so that the incidental evidence as to the bad character from _Witness B_ is mitigated. If the misdeeds of _Witness A_ form part of the crime for which the accused is being tried, it would be very difficult to make it disappear...

Just so you know, I'm not a lawyer/attorney, so nothing I say is based on legal knowledge, only from nearly 70 years of observation.


----------



## ironpony (Mar 4, 2016)

Okay thanks.  Well the prosecutor does need witness A, and B is not enough on his own.  There are pieces of the puzzle which witness A was only present at the complete the puzzle, in order to prove a case.  So the prosecutor could let B go as a witness, since A is more important, but since A will not tell him what her crime was, he would have to let B go on blind faith.

Or if no one is entitled to immunity under these circumstances, the prosecutor could just roll the dice, and have both witness go on the stand, and see what they have to say and what happens, once witness B realizes that witness A is on the case as well.

Would the prosecutor and the defense attorney be legally allowed to take witness B aside and tell them that witness A wants immunity for a crime that he might implicate her in, and he was wondering what that crime would be that he has knowledge of?


----------



## Sleepwriter (Mar 4, 2016)

Witness A can just plead the 5th on questions regarding their crime.  Unless you are trying to nail witness A , why even bring up what they did?


You have to give up something  really good for immunity.


----------



## ironpony (Mar 4, 2016)

But even if witness A can plead the fifth, the fifth, will not stop witness B from incriminating her.  Is their any law to protect witnesses from other witnesses incriminating them?


----------



## aj47 (Mar 4, 2016)

Show us a sample of the testimony you've written.


----------



## TheWonderingNovice (Mar 5, 2016)

For all your question threads, this better be a damn good script. I say this with the best wishes.

Pleaing the fifth would be the best way to not incriminate yourself. They can also find a way to question witness B's credibility which may or may not get the testimony thrown out.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Mar 5, 2016)

astroannie said:


> Show us a sample of the testimony you've written.



I would be interested in seeing that as well.

But good luck getting it.


----------



## ironpony (Mar 5, 2016)

Okay thanks.   I haven't written the testimony scene yet since I am not aware of the legalities of how it worked.

But pleading the fifth will do no good, since that is not witness A's problem.  Her problem is another witness incriminating her, so I was wondering which law, or which amendment works for that.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Mar 5, 2016)

ironpony said:


> Okay thanks.   I haven't written the testimony scene yet since I am not aware of the legalities of how it worked.
> 
> But pleading the fifth will do no good, since that is not witness A's problem.  Her problem is another witness incriminating her, so I was wondering which law, or which amendment works for that.



If the second witness is going to impeach her then she is going to to be questioned about it, in which case she can plead the fifth - The fact of her crime(s) is clearly relevant to the main case or you wouldn't have brought it up. It may not be her problem, but it is clearly a problem for the prosecution. "_It goes to the character of the witness_" will be the phrase used by the defence; so you have to find a way of lessening the impact of _Witness B's_ testimony which includes accusations of her criminal activities. If you can make _Witness B's_ comments about the lady in the case "Hearsay," then you can have a judge rule it out before the trial starts, but beware of a Deus ex machina.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Mar 5, 2016)

astroannie said:


> "has to" is relative.  We don't torture witnesses in the US.



No, you just "Render" them to another place.... Semantics


----------



## ironpony (Mar 5, 2016)

Okay thanks.  I can't make it hearsay since witness B did not hear of witness A's crime through another person, but was present himself when the crime was committed.  So it's not hearsay, unfortunately.

How would it be a deux ex machina though?


----------



## aj47 (Mar 5, 2016)

ironpony said:


> Okay thanks.  I can't make it hearsay since witness B did not hear of witness A's crime through another person, but was present himself when the crime was committed.  So it's not hearsay, unfortunately.



This.  This is why I said post an excerpt--your descriptions are difficult to follow.  It's like showing your work in math(s) -- we can see what you did and where you're going better if we have the actual stuff and not just a rendition of it.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Mar 5, 2016)

ironpony said:


> Okay thanks.  I can't make it hearsay since witness B did not hear of witness A's crime through another person, but was present himself when the crime was committed.  So it's not hearsay, unfortunately.
> 
> How would it be a deux ex machina though?



In that case he's guilty of failing to report a crime, which is, in itself, a crime in America.

I didn't say it would be, I said don't introduce one in order to get out of your difficulty. I think that you are going to have to draw up some kind of event/witness/action planner so you know who, why, what, where & when.

I'm not going to do all your work for you...


----------



## ironpony (Mar 5, 2016)

Okay thanks.  If there is no law to protect witness A from witness B, in exchange for A's testimony, and A still has to legally testify anyway, than I could write it so that witness B does incriminate A, but A is so good at lying on the stand, that she has an alibi, and it becomes B's word against her's and A cannot be arrested cause B does not have enough proof, or since he failed to report the crime before, most of the evidence is now gone.  If this works better than her demanding immunity in exchange for her testimony.


----------



## Sleepwriter (Mar 5, 2016)

If B does not have enough proof to keep from lying about it, then B should not say anything, cause that will bring into question B's credibility.


----------



## ironpony (Mar 5, 2016)

No, I meant A would have to lie to contest B's testimony.  B would tell the truth of course.  What about that, if A lied to get out of B's accusations?


----------



## ironpony (Mar 5, 2016)

Well all B is doing is telling what he knows.  Just because you do not have enough proof it does not make one a liar.  Plus B thinks it' important, to not have a crooked witness on the stand like A, so B wants to try to say something about it.  Plus if B delays reporting it, then a crime goes unresolved, no?


----------



## Sleepwriter (Mar 5, 2016)

ironpony said:


> Well all B is doing is telling what he knows.  Just because you do not have enough proof it does not make one a liar.  Plus B thinks it' important, to not have a crooked witness on the stand like A, so B wants to try to say something about it.  Plus if B delays reporting it, then a crime goes unresolved, no?



I forget is A and B witnesses for the same side or opposite?


----------



## ironpony (Mar 6, 2016)

Sleepwriter said:


> I forget is A and B witnesses for the same side or opposite?



They are witnesses for the same side, and their statements were taken before... but B can still incriminate A in a crime, depending on what questions the defense attorney chooses to ask, and A realizes this.  A did not tell of her crime to the prosecutor before cause she doesn't want to incriminate herself obviously, and B did not tell the prosecutor before, because he didn't know that A was going to be a part of the case, and did not figure out it was all connected till the court date.

Well perhaps I do not understand.  When prosecutors and defense attorneys get witnesses, how do they know which side the witness will be on, since it's all the same case?  For example, if someone witness's a murder, then that person goes to the police to report it, which side is that person on, since both the prosecutor and the defense attorney will want to cross-examine that witness?


----------



## Bishop (Mar 6, 2016)

ironpony said:


> Well perhaps I do not understand.  When prosecutors and defense attorneys get witnesses, how do they know which side the witness will be on, since it's all the same case?  For example, if someone witness's a murder, then that person goes to the police to report it, which side is that person on, since both the prosecutor and the defense attorney will want to cross-examine that witness?



Witnesses are not inherently on either "side". What you're talking about are EYE witnesses, in this last post. Those are generally called by the prosecution because the burden of proof is on the prosecution and an eye witness is meant to provide a level of credible evidence. That being said, the defense will have a chance to cross and re-call witnesses if they so choose. Defense usually has a counter-strategy for what they expect a prosecutor to use as their primary methods of extracting proof. That can include their own witnesses, recalling previous ones (though they SHOULD discredit eye witnesses in their cross), and can also call character witnesses, expert witnesses, and other special witnesses to break down evidence produced by the prosecution. They also often call the defendant to give their telling of certain events.

I really, really wish I could have this last line sink in with you AT ALL: *You need to do a LOT more research before writing a story on law enforcement and legal proceedings. *


----------



## LeeC (Mar 6, 2016)

Even more so the endless buts, what ifs, and avoidance of putting up any actual writing, in this and the OP's other threads seems to me to be missing the key aspect of writing:

"_The two most engaging powers of an author are to make new things familiar, and familiar things new._" ~ Samuel Johnson

In other words it matters little what you write, but rather how well you convey your story.


----------



## aj47 (Mar 6, 2016)

Sleepwriter said:


> I forget is A and B witnesses for the same side or opposite?



This.  This is why I want to see some testimony.  It's confusing, this A and B stuff.  Especially since I have a life and only come to this thread maybe once a day or every few days.  I want to be helpful, but I'm too confused and I can tell I'm not the only one.

We have workshop areas here where your stuff is safe from search engines so only the other forum members (who, incidentally, are trying to help you) can read it. You don't have to worry about some idea thief coming along and stealing your work. Let us be your "readers" if you really are interested in our input.

This is, of course, assuming you HAVE any actual work done.  I say this because I cannot imagine how anyone who spends so much time on hypotheticals and theoreticals has any time left over to actually write.  Especially if they have a regular life with family and stuff.  So, post your testimony. Let us see what you've got and help find the actual holes, not the hypothetical ones.  

Another reason I say this is my husband spotted almost a score of errors in _The Martian_ (the book).  It was still made into a movie that people thought was good enough to be nominated for awards.  It really doesn't _matter_ as much as you seem to think it does.


----------



## ironpony (Mar 6, 2016)

Okay thanks.  Well I haven't written this part section of the story yet since I am not sure how legal procedure wise.  That is why I thought I would ask first.

I was told by one writer before to write the story without bringing so many legal technicalities into it, but I find that very difficult.  I mean if dead bodies are lying around, the courts are always, always going to realistically get involved and it's hard to write a story of murder, without legal consequence.  So I feel I have to get technical about it, or I am failing to see how I can leave the law out of it, and still have it be believable.


----------



## Sleepwriter (Mar 6, 2016)

Then it sounds like its time to hit the books and learn a bit about the law.  Everyone has opinions, but in the end it's your story, so write it.

TV shows don't always get it right, yet they still get aired, so don't worry about that.  Do your homework and write your story.


----------



## ironpony (Mar 6, 2016)

Okay thanks. Well I could have witness A remain silent, take the fifth, and not comment on any of witness B's accusations of him, saying she was part of the crime.  Or I could have her play come up with an alibi and be prepared for it.

If a person takes the fifth and remains silent, are the police allowed to use that as grounds to tape her phone and email?  Or if she has an alibi, decides not to take the fifth and talks, would that lessen the chances of her being spied on after by the police?  I cannot find legal books that say whether or not taking the fifth, is legal grounds to predicate getting warrants to tape a suspect.


----------



## Sleepwriter (Mar 6, 2016)

just because a cop wants to phone tap someone or get access to that person's email, they still have to have enough evidence to get a judge sign off on the warrant necessary to do any of that.  If that don't, it would all get thrown out if they try and use it for evidence.  As for just following or "staking out" the suspect, they best get the chief/captain or whoever their boss is to agree or they could get in trouble for harassment should they get caught.


----------



## LeeC (Mar 6, 2016)

ironpony said:


> Okay thanks.  Well I haven't written this part section of the story yet since I am not sure how legal procedure wise.  That is why I thought I would ask first.
> 
> I was told by one writer before to write the story without bringing so many legal technicalities into it, but I find that very difficult.  I mean if dead bodies are lying around, the courts are always, always going to realistically get involved and it's hard to write a story of murder, without legal consequence.  So I feel I have to get technical about it, or I am failing to see how I can leave the law out of it, and still have it be believable.



You're avoiding the point again. Write the thing, then put it up to see what our opinions are if you're concerned about it. It's pointless to keep alluding to these supposed others you say are counseling you. Unless we can see how you convey the story, we're all just pissin' in the wind. 



ironpony said:


> Okay thanks. Well I could have witness A remain silent, take the fifth, and not comment on any of witness B's accusations of him, saying she was part of the crime.  Or I could have her play come up with an alibi and be prepared for it.
> 
> If a person takes the fifth and remains silent, are the police allowed to use that as grounds to tape her phone and email?  Or if she has an alibi, decides not to take the fifth and talks, would that lessen the chances of her being spied on after by the police?  I cannot find legal books that say whether or not taking the fifth, is legal grounds to predicate getting warrants to tape a suspect.



There's a lot of things you could do, but unless you actually do something what's the point. 
The point you keep sidestepping is it's not so much what you write, but how well you write it.

Did you ever read the post at: 
http://www.writingforums.com/threads/142043-Just-Write?highlight=


----------



## ironpony (Mar 6, 2016)

Yes I read that thread before.

I want to finish it, I just have writers block on where to with some parts, cause I do not know how the police system works, or I do, but not sure how far I can stretch if I take artistic license.

When I try to explain the plot scenario, do I not explain enough or do a bad job?  Or does one really have to read the entire story to understand one scenario?


----------



## LeeC (Mar 7, 2016)

ironpony said:


> Yes I read that thread before.
> 
> I want to finish it, I just have writers block on where to with some parts, cause I do not know how the police system works, or I do, but not sure how far I can stretch if I take artistic license.
> 
> When I try to explain the plot scenario, do I not explain enough or do a bad job?  Or does one really have to read the entire story to understand one scenario?



Yet again, writing is using your imagination and selling it to the reader. So yes, we can only really help you with your writing effort if we see the writing. What some mysterious others said means diddly in garnering opinions about whether the story works.



ironpony said:


> Or does one really have to read the entire story to understand one scenario?


And don't deflect the point by reconstructing my words in a contradictory manner.


----------



## Sleepwriter (Mar 7, 2016)

ironpony said:


> Yes I read that thread before.
> 
> I want to finish it, I just have writers block on where to with some parts, cause I do not know how the police system works, or I do, but not sure how far I can stretch if I take artistic license.
> 
> When I try to explain the plot scenario, do I not explain enough or do a bad job?  Or does one really have to read the entire story to understand one scenario?



Here is another thought, go talk to a cop.  If you can't seem to find any information anywhere on the internet or in books.


----------



## ironpony (Mar 7, 2016)

Yep I already asked them.  But they were not as much help, I found because they said that there is no way this could ever happen in the real world, so they have no idea what the police would do.  So I thought maybe it would be better to ask the opinion of other fiction writers, if the police were going to say that.


----------



## Sleepwriter (Mar 7, 2016)

ironpony said:


> Yep I already asked them.  But they were not as much help, I found because they said that there is no way this could ever happen in the real world, so they have no idea what the police would do.  So I thought maybe it would be better to ask the opinion of other fiction writers, if the police were going to say that.




Umm, almost all of what's on TV wouldn't happen in the real world.  Good gravy man!    Just break down the bits you can find out about, like what's involved with getting wire taps and trying to build a case against a suspect. then write.  I know you want it to be perfect, but write the scene.


----------



## ironpony (Mar 7, 2016)

Okay then.  I am just not sure HOW to write the scene without knowing those technicalities first.  What the police meant, is that they do not know if they could get a warrant in my case, since the case itself is impossible, so they are not sure if a judge would sign off on it.  I can write it the best I can and leave it at that.


----------



## Bishop (Mar 7, 2016)

ironpony said:


> Okay then.  I am just not sure HOW to write the scene without knowing those technicalities first.



My opinion is that you can't. That's why, when I wrote a court scene for my drama, I called my brother, a public defendant and trial lawyer, and proceeded to waste an hour of his time asking questions to get real answers. Many of his responses were just names of books/state statutes I'd need to research on my own, since even he, a professional with years of experience, doesn't know the answer to EVERY question. A four page scene took me a few days to properly research, but I know it's accurate to real trial law and procedure. 

I bought him a pizza to compensate him for his time, also, so the research wasn't exactly "free".


----------



## DaBlaRR (Mar 7, 2016)

Do you know what Fiction means? 

Even if you don't have everything technically right... the average reader/watcher isn't going to know the difference. Even if they do know the difference. If you make it convincing and entertaining.. no one gives a shit about what the technicalities are.


----------



## Bishop (Mar 7, 2016)

DaBlaRR said:


> Do you know what Fiction means?
> 
> Even if you don't have everything technically right... the average reader/watcher isn't going to know the difference. Even if they do know the difference. If you make it convincing and entertaining.. no one gives a shit about what the technicalities are.



Yes, I do. I write sci-fi, arguably the most ridiculous and technically inaccurate of genres. But that means I have to do ten times the amount of research. _Plausibility _makes a very large difference. You, as a writer, cannot simply say "the reader won't notice, so I won't make the effort." You do not have that luxury. You have a responsibility to the truth, mostly because if you don't, a real mistake--a big and defining mistake--will slip in. And when that happens, it destroys the rest of your work, because in the digital age, your mistake will be found, flagged, and proliferated nigh infinitely, until it's the defining point of your image. And that's the least of your reasoning for it. Do you not want to be able to know these things for future stories? Do you want to intentionally make yourself ignorant and yet write permanently on these topics?

Not EVERY reader or watcher will know the difference. But those that do will make it known, and you will be putting your name on something you should be ashamed of. Because you refused to go the extra mile and learn something, thus proliferated ignorance. If you're going to write something to the best of your ability, use everything at your disposal.


----------



## DaBlaRR (Mar 8, 2016)

Bishop said:


> Yes, I do. I write sci-fi, arguably the most ridiculous and technically inaccurate of genres. But that means I have to do ten times the amount of research. _Plausibility _makes a very large difference. You, as a writer, cannot simply say "the reader won't notice, so I won't make the effort." You do not have that luxury. You have a responsibility to the truth, mostly because if you don't, a real mistake--a big and defining mistake--will slip in. And when that happens, it destroys the rest of your work, because in the digital age, your mistake will be found, flagged, and proliferated nigh infinitely, until it's the defining point of your image. And that's the least of your reasoning for it. Do you not want to be able to know these things for future stories? Do you want to intentionally make yourself ignorant and yet write permanently on these topics?
> 
> Not EVERY reader or watcher will know the difference. But those that do will make it known, and you will be putting your name on something you should be ashamed of. Because you refused to go the extra mile and learn something, thus proliferated ignorance. If you're going to write something to the best of your ability, use everything at your disposal.



Bishop...My man... That comment was not directed at you. You're a member I look up to here FYI and not someone I would want to go toe to toe with when it comes to our world of fiction. I was talking to Ironpony. 

But to touch on your point (when you thought I was questioning you).. I get it. When I write I want to get as much facts down to the tee as possible. BUT, I'm not gonna go all OCD up on that shit. I don't need to pass the bar to write a legal scene. I don't need to question why my character who is a cop is carrying a gun off duty, because in Canada none do. No reader is going to care about that. And that is what I was saying to Ironpony, not in response to your comments. Majority, if not all of the time, I agree with what you say.


----------



## Sam (Mar 8, 2016)

DaBlaRR said:


> Do you know what Fiction means?
> 
> Even if you don't have everything technically right... the average reader/watcher isn't going to know the difference. Even if they do know the difference. If you make it convincing and entertaining.. no one gives a shit about what the technicalities are.



The "readers won't know the difference" line is a cop-out. 

You don't decline to do research just because most readers won't know the difference. As a writer, you do the research -- if for nothing more than plausibility and the select few who _will _​know the difference.


----------



## DaBlaRR (Mar 8, 2016)

Sam said:


> The "readers won't know the difference" line is a cop-out.
> 
> You don't decline to do research just because most readers won't know the difference. As a writer, you do the research -- if for nothing more than plausibility and the select few who _will _​know the difference.



How the tables have turned.

No Sam, I stand by that, when it comes to the questions Ironpony has asked. In a lot of cases maybe it is a cop out. As I mentioned to Bishop, I'm not gonna pass the bar to write a legal scene. I'll do as much research NEEDED in order to make the scene believable and entertaining. 

If I was to take a reader/watcher perspective (and a Canadian for that matter)... If Ironpony wrote a film that was based in Canada and a police officer carried a gun off duty, I wouldn't question the legalities of it. For me I know the legalities and I still wouldn't care. For the ones who know the legalities... in MOST cases they won't care. If they do, then they should stick to reading the news. 

These examples, by the way, are a combination of the thousand threads IP does on the daily... But it all relates pretty much to every question.

I with my own writing don't "decline to do research" But when it becomes so extreme that you can't even right the word "the" on the page because you need to be an expert about every scene and the legalities or whatever behind it... where is the writing? when's the writing happening? 

To each's own Sam.


----------



## Sam (Mar 8, 2016)

I never said anything about passing the Bar. 

I said, do your research regardless of whether or not anyone will know the difference.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Mar 8, 2016)

ironpony said:


> Okay then.  I am just not sure HOW to write the scene without knowing those technicalities first.  What the police meant, is that they do not know if they could get a warrant in my case, since the case itself is impossible, so they are not sure if a judge would sign off on it.  I can write it the best I can and leave it at that.



And round and round and round we go.

I really need to get off this ride.

But...one just can't help but look. 

It's like a slow motion train wreck.


----------



## DaBlaRR (Mar 8, 2016)

Sam said:


> I never said anything about passing the Bar.
> 
> I said, do your research regardless of whether or not anyone will know the difference.



I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say we are most likely on the same page. My exaggerations are targeted at IP...

There is proper research...then there is obsessive facts you need to make your fiction as factual as possible. So much so that you will never finish the story you started because it's not factual enough.


----------



## DaBlaRR (Mar 8, 2016)

T.S.Bowman said:


> And round and round and round we go.
> 
> I really need to get off this ride.
> 
> ...



HAHA... I feel you. One thing IP has... Is if he ever finishes this and puts it on the screen, he has a guaranteed viewer right here.. he has me hooked.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Mar 8, 2016)

Sam said:


> I never said anything about passing the Bar.
> 
> I said, do your research regardless of whether or not anyone will know the difference.



I think the idea, though, is that the fella has himself so wrapped up in technicalities and inane details, on top of obviously being disinclined to do any kind of research other than  talking to a couple of cops, that he is paralyzing himself and not writing a blessed thing.

At some point the dude has to get SOMETHING written. Even if it is technically inaccurate. Anything would be better than nothing.


----------



## Sam (Mar 8, 2016)

T.S.Bowman said:


> I think the idea, though, is that the fella has himself so wrapped up in technicalities and inane details, on top of obviously being disinclined to do any kind of research other than  talking to a couple of cops, that he is paralyzing himself and not writing a blessed thing.
> 
> At some point the dude has to get SOMETHING written. Even if it is technically inaccurate. Anything would be better than nothing.



You've both confused my point. 

I'm not talking about this thread, or its OP, but instead about the importance of doing research from a general perspective. 

I agree that ironpony is overthinking it. He started overthinking it weeks ago.


----------



## Bishop (Mar 8, 2016)

DaBlaRR said:


> Bishop...My man... That comment was not directed at you. You're a member I look up to here FYI and not someone I would want to go toe to toe with when it comes to our world of fiction. I was talking to Ironpony.



Aaah, my mistake--and thank you for your kind words! Though, my wife says if people look up to me, they may want to look at their life choices. So uhh... be warned!


----------



## DaBlaRR (Mar 8, 2016)

Sam said:


> You've both confused my point.
> 
> I'm not talking about this thread, or its OP, but instead about the importance of doing research from a general perspective.
> 
> I agree that ironpony is overthinking it. He started overthinking it weeks ago.



Yes and in that case, I 100% agree with you in general...just not when it pertains to the OP and his thread(s).


----------



## ironpony (Mar 8, 2016)

I feel I am overthinking but a lot of times readers, will pick up on a problem that I never saw there, so I thought it was good to cover all angles.  But it's time to write.  I am going to write and write. and then post the entire script if that's best.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Mar 8, 2016)

Sam said:


> You've both confused my point.
> 
> I'm not talking about this thread, or its OP, but instead about the importance of doing research from a general perspective.
> 
> I agree that ironpony is overthinking it. He started overthinking it weeks ago.



Fair enough, Sam.

My mistake.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Mar 8, 2016)

ironpony said:


> I feel I am overthinking but a lot of times readers, will pick up on a problem that I never saw there, so I thought it was good to cover all angles.  But it's time to write.  I am going to write and write. and then post the entire script if that's best.




Here's a question that just occurred to me.

If you haven't written any of the testimony you are asking questions about, then how in the blue hell did anyone "read" it?


----------



## ironpony (Mar 10, 2016)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Here's a question that just occurred to me.
> 
> If you haven't written any of the testimony you are asking questions about, then how in the blue hell did anyone "read" it?



I mean I didn't write it out in dialogue.  I haven't finished all the parts of my script in dialogue.  Some sections I have writer's block on since I do not know the legalities of the scenario.  So I want to finish those sections, with dialogue and all, but not sure how they would play out, and therefore am stuck on how to proceed.


----------



## LeeC (Mar 10, 2016)

Are you sure it's a case of so-called writer's block ;-) You've been quite prolific in keeping a discussion of your storyline going. 

Maybe in obsessing over all the minutiae of this storyline, you're missing a real opportunity in not writing a Kafka style story. 

Wishing you the best in your writing


----------



## ironpony (Mar 10, 2016)

Well I have many ideas on how to end the story and where to take it, but they keep leading to dead ends at the end of the second act, for some reason.


----------



## DaBlaRR (Mar 10, 2016)

It's self inflicted writers block. It's over thinking every little scenario. 

What's the EXTREME opposite of writers block, that has a negative impact? Is there something of that sort? If there is, that's what you have. 

Honestly IP, you should go back to that comment you made earlier in this thread, that you are going to write and write, and then post it. Because if you have accomplished anything, I think you have peaked some peoples interest, including mine. So that's a good thing. But just get it done, brother. Stop questioning yourself and just have faith in what you write. Finish it completely, then you can always tweak it in the end. But personally I think you should quit with the damn outlines, write the first full draft, dialogue and all... There are the writers who are planners and then the ones who write as they go (there are words for that, that I don't remember cause I'm a newbie writer myself)... But in my opinion, you need to NOT be a planner because it is your biggest hindrance. Just write to the end without worrying about anything but getting it done. Then fix the kinks later.


----------



## ironpony (Mar 11, 2016)

DaBlaRR said:


> It's self inflicted writers block. It's over thinking every little scenario.
> 
> What's the EXTREME opposite of writers block, that has a negative impact? Is there something of that sort? If there is, that's what you have.
> 
> Honestly IP, you should go back to that comment you made earlier in this thread, that you are going to write and write, and then post it. Because if you have accomplished anything, I think you have peaked some peoples interest, including mine. So that's a good thing. But just get it done, brother. Stop questioning yourself and just have faith in what you write. Finish it completely, then you can always tweak it in the end. But personally I think you should quit with the damn outlines, write the first full draft, dialogue and all... There are the writers who are planners and then the ones who write as they go (there are words for that, that I don't remember cause I'm a newbie writer myself)... But in my opinion, you need to NOT be a planner because it is your biggest hindrance. Just write to the end without worrying about anything but getting it done. Then fix the kinks later.



Okay thanks.  It's just when I ask others about the story, they make a whole list of holes in it, and as a result, I feel like I am underthinking the scenarios, and not paying enough attention to the little things, as a result.  Since it's mostly the legal system that has been getting in the way of several parts, according to others, I can just try and make things up, but then that will probably create more holes, I am guessing.  But maybe I should just make things up, in order to finish it?


----------

