Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Pluvia who wrote (90046)	1/26/2005 9:01:59 AM
From: rrufff	Respond to of 122087

Again, you seem to want to take a sentence or two out of context. From what I read, Elgindy's attorneys actually brought up some of the stuff that hurt him. E.g., the discussion about what was reported to a probation officer. Normally, a defendant would avoid at all costs discussion about priors. As for the terror angle, no doubt this will be a part of the appeal. Again, from what has been presented in the summaries, this was something that was not just plucked out of the air and the judge spent a lot of time admonishing the jury that there were no terror charges brought against these defendants. So, with respect to your first paragraph, I disagree. It was not a cheap trick. It was good strategy and brought in properly in a factual context. Does it inflame the jury? Everything does. Have you watched murder trials? This is why you have a judge and you have hearings out of the jury's presence. This judge sounds like he knew what he was doing. Judges don't like to be overturned. I doubt this judge is going to be overturned, but you never know for sure. I agree substantially with your second paragraph and it is similar to my prior post about how prepared US Attorneys are in big cases. Their case load is not nearly as voluminous as state DA's and they want the big cases. They become experts. The tactic about which you post is accurate. It always amazes me how lay people will let themselves get in a room and answer questions without counsel present. I saw a close friend who had a very high powered drug attorney torn to pieces when he flubbed his story in front of a room full of FBI, DEA, cops, US attorney, etc., in a high profile drug case. Bottom line 15 years for selling weed, albeit a lot of weed. How his attorney who got a substantial mid 6 figure fee allowed him to do this is beyond me but WTFDIK, the guy made probably 50 times what I could ever make.