6 Tips for Better Source Citations
January 17, 2009
by Thomas
The only thing more boring than listening to evidence in a speech is listening about who said the boring stuff you are about to hear. No judge likes to be bored.
So, What is the goal of reading a citation?
The only goal as far as I am concerned is to amplify the evidence by establishing its authority. If you cause the judge to zone out, you loose. Short and simple always beats long and boring.
Here are some tips to keep your judge paying attention to your evidence:
- Use no more than ten words on a citation. Period. If your citation is longer than ten words strike unnecessary information. Striking is better than deleting because the info is there if you need it.
- Never state the day. Don’t say “Chris Edwards, March 28, 2007″ Just say “Benjamin Powel, 2005.”
- Only state the month if the quote is from this year. Even then you can probably leave it out.
- The organization is more important than the name. It is better to say “Cato Institute 2007.” than “Chris Edwards 2007.” The exception to this is if the person is a known public figure like President Obama.
- Someone’s title is more important than their name. This is particularly true if the person has a non English name. Better to say the Prime Minister of India 2009 than “Manmohan Singh 2009.”
- Abbreviate the citations ahead of time. Shortening on the fly will give you a less than an optimal citation. Strike what you won’t read so it is still handy if the opposing side asks for it. If you forgot to do that when you made the brief, have your partner strike citations in prep time.
What do you think. Are there any tips missing? Leave a comment and let us know.
Comments
4 Responses to “6 Tips for Better Source Citations”
Got something to say?
I disagree that it is better to cite the organization than the specific person. Organizations, like Cato Institute, are a lot easier to source indict than a specific person(unless that person has really bad credentials).
If the person’s credentials come from the organization, don’t bother to quote them.
Alex, there is a lot of truth in what you say, but I want to encourage you in one thing: your primary role isn’t to out-do the other team, but to convince the judge. So, don’t focus as much on strategies to not attract arguments, but on what will communicate on the judge’s level.
“Heritage Foundation” sounds much better than “Joe Hammer, a Senior Analyst at the Heritage Foundation” to a judge. And it takes less time.
Source indictments, honestly, are USUALLY trivial and easy to push off. So, CATO accepts money from Tobacco companies. Yeah…. so? Most of the time, you don’t make a big deal, the judge won’t, as long as the source is saying something reasonable.
I will add that there is another exception to the organization thing. If you have a decision between quoting Emeritus Professor DePak Lal, Ph.D., and CATO, go with Lal.
><> Brian
I disagree as well. A PhD has more smarts than a person who is only affiliated with CATO. Someone who works for CATO isn’t as credible as someone who works for CATO and has a PhD from Harvard or something like that.
I do agree that you should only state the month if the date is from the current year.
Underlining is better than strike through because it doesn’t go over the letters making it harder to read them.
I agree with point 5 although I would state the position as well as the name.
Because of new rules don’t strike through. Instead underline what you want and don’t underline want you don’t want but keep it in.