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.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (55528)	3/7/2007 10:03:05 AM
From: mph	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

As I think I posted somewhere a while back, I've found it to be bad practice to promise the jury something in opening statement and then fail to deliver. At the time, I thought that Fitzgerald had made that error. I don't think I was aware of the defense team strategy as I hadn't followed the trial until the end. I usually order a copy of my opponents' opening statements so that I can use them, if necessary, at the close to show that they failed to deliver. It can be effective. Ironically, in this instance, the defense team evidently did deliver in the sense that the jury bought what they were selling (i.e., that Libby was the fall guy) While this likely played into the jury's prejudices, the lawyers chose the wrong target as the bad guy. They should have used Fitzgerald<g>