Read these two accounts of the same day in the courtroom of the Prop 8 trial.  See if you can tell which one is on record as the advocate for one side, and which one is an “independent” professional journalistic account. Is this the objective account?

Professor Kenneth Miller, a Harvard lawyer and political science professor at Claremont McKenna College was called as a witness by the ProtectMarriage.com legal team, which demonstrated, through his testimony, that the “No on 8” campaign and its political allies have much political power, both in California and nationally. Moreover, Dr. Miller testified in favor of the initiative process in California and the ability of the California citizens to enact laws that they choose to enact.However, Dr. Miller did not always hold the opinions that he currently holds. Early in his career as a political scientist, Dr. Miller wrote articles that critiqued the initiative process and questioned its place in American democracy. However, after years of research studying hundreds of initiatives across the country, Dr. Miller came to realize that the initiative process was an effective and necessary tool in the larger democratic process. His research and the evidence of the initiative process nationwide led him to a different conclusion, and he felt so strongly about that conclusion that he wrote a book about it. Dr. Miller’s book Direct Democracy and the Courts is a known and authoritative source on the initiative and referendum process in America.

Yet, in the minds of the plaintiffs, Dr. Miller’s transformed opinion on initiatives apparently isn’t worthy of respect or their tolerance. In large part, the cross-examination of Dr. Miller amounted to an indictment of his current views on initiatives and an attempt to get him to transform his opinions (on the witness stand) to what he used to believe. Thus, for the plaintiffs, it’s perfectly permissible for Mayor Sanders’ beliefs about same-sex “marriage” to evolve, but when it comes to Dr. Miller’s professional studies and writings about the initiative process, any change that he makes which doesn’t fit the goals of those who want to redefine marriage is somehow improper….

In the end, Dr. Miller held his own quite well, and the plaintiffs were unable to undercut Dr. Miller’s powerful testimony that the advocates for marriage redefinition in the United States do not lack political power, but rather have many powerful political allies. And because Dr. Miller wouldn’t abandon his current convictions about the initiative process in America, the plaintiffs eventually ended their questioning of him.

Or is this the objective account?

David H. Thompson promptly took over and presented Kenneth Miller, a professor at Claremont McKenna as the first witness for the defense. David Boies, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, challenged Dr. Miller’s qualifications as an expert on gay and lesbian politics, but Judge Walker allowed Mr. Thompson to proceed.

The strategy of the defense was to show, with extensive detail, the political and financial backing that gays and lesbians in California have enjoyed in recent years. This could undermine the plaintiffs’ argument that Proposition 8 passed because gay men and lesbians are a politically oppressed group suffering from continuing discrimination.

“Forty-three million dollars were raised and spent by the opponents, which exceeded very large contributions by the Yes on 8 campaign,” Dr. Miller said. “There is no social issue that has ever involved this kind of money.”

He added: “This is exceptional.”

Dr. Miller also testified that gays and lesbians could count on a deep and varied contingent of political allies. He named the state and national Democratic parties, organized labor, newspapers, celebrities and some church groups as politically powerful institutions and individuals that favor same-sex marriage.

When Mr. Thompson asked Dr. Miller who is the most critical gatekeeper in political access in California politics, Dr. Miller pointed to Susan Kennedy, the chief of staff to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

“Ms. Kennedy herself is an openly lesbian person and she is, I would guess, a strong advocate of LGBT rights and she’s made that clear in public as well,” Dr. Miller said.

Dr. Miller, with Mr. Thompson’s guidance, then began listing a long roll of politically connected and influential individuals in the state who have publicly voiced support for gay men and lesbians. These included Attorney General Jerry Brown, the secretary of state, Debra Bower, Treasurer William Lockyer, the controller John Chiang and the superintendent of public instruction, Jack O’Connell.

Also prominent among supporters of issues important to gay men and lesbians are the mayors of three major cities, Gavin Newsom, Antonio Villaraigosa and Jerry Sanders, the mayors of San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego respectively.

Dr. Miller also testified that the teachers union in California has donated $1.3 million to Equality California, the group seeking to strike down Proposition 8. The Service Employees International Union has given $500,000.

Mr. Thompson noted that major corporations have also been listed as sponsors on Equality California’s website, from the Silicon Valley search-engine giant Google to AT&T, Comcast, Wells Fargo, Kaiser Permanente, PG&E, Genentech and Southern California Edison….

After Mr. Thompson finished questioning Dr. Miller, the rest of Monday afternoon was taken up by Mr. Boies’s cross examination of Dr. Miller, which yielded some uncomfortable moments for the professor of government from Claremont McKenna College.The defense, fending off Mr. Boies’s attempts to disqualify Dr. Miller earlier in the day, had characterized Dr. Miller as a scholar well versed across the broad politics of California initiatives. Upon the start of his cross examination, however, Mr. Boies persistently tried to uncover Dr. Miller’s unfamiliarity in the area of gay and lesbian political and legal history as he cast doubt on the professor’s qualifications as an expert witness for this trial.

Mr. Boies pointed out that during his deposition, Dr. Miller said he did not know how many states had laws regarding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Then, after Mr. Boies pressed Dr. Miller to answer whether a rebuttal report he filed with the court contained materials he had found himself or with the aid of defense counsel, Dr. Miller acknowledged that he did receive materials from lawyers.
Mr. Boies then asked Dr. Miller to circle all the indexed materials that Dr. Miller received from defense lawyers, and for the next 15 minutes, Dr. Miller, quietly seated in the witness stand, did so.
Mr. Boies appeared to land two blows in quick succession when Dr. Miller testified that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policies constituted “official discrimination.”

The questioning grew increasingly strained as Mr. Boies continued to ask Dr. Miller to answer a range of difficult questions, ranging from political history to gay and lesbian politics and scholarship.
Dr. Miller acknowledged that he was not familiar with the work of Professor George Chauncey of Yale, who testified during the trial’s first week, or a list of other scholars that Mr. Boies said were known experts in the field of L.G.B.T. studies.

“What academic books and articles are you familiar with regarding the discrimination against minority groups?”

Dr. Miller demurred.

“You mean you can’t think of any titles?” Mr. Boies asked.

“No, I can’t,” Dr. Miller responded.

Mr. Boies, minutes later, asked, “Nationally, do you believe the African-American minority or the gay and lesbian minority has the greater political power?”

Dr. Miller responded, “I’d have to say I don’t know.”

At one point, midway through an intensifying series of questions from Mr. Boies, Mr. Thompson, the defense lawyer, stood up to object that the questions had strayed beyond the scope of Dr. Miller’s expertise.

To the loudest laughter of the afternoon and a chuckle from Judge Walker, Mr. Boies responded wryly, “I think there is some merit to that objection.”

The first account was reported by the Alliance Defense Fund, attorneys for the defendent. One would natually expect them to put their case and their witness in the best possible light. The second account was from the New York Times.  Whom do they represent, I wonder?