Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (222803)	3/6/2007 11:46:48 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) of 281500

I do, naturally, but I did not follow the trial closely, so my opinion is very much based on a few impressions colored by my bias. On the whole, I think that the defense did not do well. The promises made in opening argument were not delivered, which is deadly to any good defense as the lawyer loses credibility. Second, the def. lacked focus. They were all over the place, perhaps intentionally, in an effort to give the jury something on which to hang reasonable doubt. But this was by all accounts an intelligent jury, one in which this tactic misfired as they assiduously picked through the evidence at length. The problem with the prosecution I have is probably the same one you have: the criminality of the unproven, unprosecuted underlying charge should have been obvious from the first volley. I made a few posts in 2003 suggesting that the statute didn't fit; if something like that is obvious to a lawyer observing from afar, it is more than evident to the prosecutor. In effect prompting the crime has a whiff of the chicken coop to me.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next