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 : AP's Crime -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Pluvia who wrote (42)	1/28/2005 1:09:34 AM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78

Personally, I think the 9/11 stuff just got the journalist's attention. Each of the articles indicated that the judge admonished the jury. This was not a surprise to defendant's counsel or to Breen or to the judge. Everyone knew this would come up. Everyone knew the arguments and everyone knew what the judge would rule. The judge allowed testimony to come in and defendant's counsel must have known that there was no error, given the judge's admonition. The bottom line is that on appeal you don't get a chance to try your case again. For this to succeed on appeal, defendant would have to prove that the jury was so inflamed by the mention of terror and that it outweighed the probative value of the evidence. In other words, it is not "wrong" to bring in inflamatory evidence so long as its probative value outweighs the damage it does to the defendant. More damning, from the standpoint of inflamation, I thought was the references to priors and that appears to have been brought up Tony's lawyer, who apparently brought up the topic of what was reported to the probation officer.