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 : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (91352)	10/4/2007 7:01:37 PM
From: Elroy Jetson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

If you were on trial, and the Prosecutor claimed "we know that Lizzie Tudor doesn't reside in San Francisco," its your attorney's responsibility to: object; present contrary evidence; if this occurs during the closing arguments either request a mistrial or remind the jury of the contrary evidence presented. If you can prove the prosecution knew you resided in San Francisco when they claimed that you did not, then they will likely be disbarred and your conviction reversed because they're an officer of the court, unlike the defense attorney who is not. But you did say the prosecution in this case did not interview witnesses who may have given them the correct information, so it doesn't sound like there's a way to prove the prosecution knew. If the client knew people in the accounting department who could support his case and refused to tell his attorney, this mess is his responsibility. If he told his attorney, and his attorney chose not to depose these people, then that's arguably malpractice. If they were deposed and said they knew and approve of the actions in advance, then the prosecution obviously knew as well since they receive copies of the deposition before trial. You can see the burden of this all falls back on the defense counsel and the client. You don't have to defend yourself properly, but you also get to suffer the consequences. So you can see why justice in our nation favors those with money to spend on good defense - and the client in this case certainly had that. Yes the Justice Department under the Bush administration is anti-business, but they can't make up facts if you have a defense counsel doing their job. .