I think the defense did OK with what they had to work with. They got blown out of the water on day one with the sexting thing. When your client lied to investigators, what do you do? It’s not their fault that the heart of their defense wasn’t the unimpeachable integrity of their client.Originally Posted by RevolverRob
Last edited by txdpd; 10-03-2019 at 09:27 AM.
Whether you think you can or you can't, you're probably right.
The first rule of finding yourself in a hole is to STOP DIGGING. Most folks do not know when to put the shovel down.
My wife and I have actually been teaching our nephews and niece when to "shut up". Kids have a tendency to talk themselves into more trouble. So when we talk to them, we teach them things like, "If someone asks you X, what do you say?" - My oldest nephew (almost 9) is coming along nicely. Now if he is asked a difficult question about his behavior by his parents or teacher, he provides a vague and evasive answer followed by, "Sorry, I'll have to consult my council, before I answer further questions." We also taught him "I plead the 5th." Both its actual legal usage and its lexicon use.
I was teaching my youngest nephew how to redirect accusations made against him on Sunday. He'll make a fine politician some day.
But the general idea we're driving home with the kids is that you do not have to answer all questions or respond to all accusations, sometimes you just need to shut up and say nothing.
As much as I love my hometown, Dallas PD has not seemed to have had competent leadership in the upper echelons since the early-to-mid '90s. Fortunately, they still seem to have good leadership where it matters most, at the street level. That seems to reflect a broader trend across the country in large urban areas. It's unfortunate, but a reality. I mean look at DPD's current police chief...Competent leadership is necessary to hire qualified supervisory personnel to monitor, instruct, redirect, and reassign under officers unsuited for the job.
I'm sorry...this just tickled me. Carry on.
On topic:
It seems to me, from the little I have followed of the trial, that the defense greatly miscalculated the damage that the defendant could do to her own case by taking the stand. She did herself few favors with the way she responded to her cross examination. She was ill prepared and for that her counsel shares some of the blame.
That said...this case is tragic in every regard and under the circumstances the sentence does not seem unduly harsh. This one will hurt many for a long time to come.
There's nothing civil about this war.
All things considered , I think she’s lucky she only got 10 taking after taking it to trail. I do believe it to be a fair sentence but a lucky one.
In the past I worked for a defense attorney. My boss would never have advised this woman to take it to trail. Most likely he would have advised her to plea out to manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide. Hoping for 10 years probation but ultimately settling for 2-4 years incarcerations time.
Last edited by TheNewbie; 10-03-2019 at 10:57 AM.
I have no reason to continue any personal animosity, so let's just let that slide. We can disagree on the merits of issues.
As far as the comment - will it hurt me in court - I got that from an article I wrote:
https://www.thejuryexpert.com/2009/0...armed-citizen/
After, I published a professional peer reviewed piece - they ask me to write one for them. It was one of their top downloads of the year, IIRC.
It's up the client whether he/she wants to testify, not the attorneys. I have no idea if they advised her to testify or not, but it was a bad idea and she was ill prepared. When asked if she meant to kill the guy, she could have said, "I just wanted to stop him." instead of, "You're damn right I ordered the code red."
"Gunfighting is a thinking man's game. So we might want to bring thinking back into it."-MDFA
Beware of my temper, and the dog that I've found...
A lawyer buddy of mine said that in self-defense cases, since there is no doubt that the homocide took place, juries need to hear a justification from the defendant for the act to be convinced of the SD justification. If you wouldn't speak for yourself, your motives are suspect.
Of course, you should be intensively prepped as to what you say and for possible questions. For the real and expensive deal, they would run these past a mock panel. That costs plenty. Big firms did that when they were being sued. In fact, prediction equations using logistic regression were developed for the first powerful Texas Instrument programmable calculators. I might have this wrong, but some big chemical company funded the developing of such and tested it in the Attica trials defense. It was then used in their case.
Marsha Clark supposedly ignored the jury analysis when she conducted the voir dire, to her own detriment and trial loss. Of course, juries can surprise you and there is no guarantee of anything.
It's a crap shoot.
The ability of a client to get their "narrative" across under direct, and then withstand the cross is not something everyone can accomplish with the same level of ability and skill. Add to that the jurors getting to watch the body language, any attempt to evade or cross swords with the prosecutor, etc. and it's a real gamble.
Bottom line, in my experience from many trials, is that if the prosecution and the agents or police have done their job, the defense has limited options to work with, unless they can impeach the evidence or testimony offered against the defendant on some factual basis. Or at least create reasonable doubt.
Juries don't like when the defense appears to be badgering witnesses or taking obvious liberties with the truth.
Others may have differing experiences but those are mine over a period of 20+ years as the lead agent on cases involving money laundering, narcotics, arms smuggling and related matters.
Sometimes it's better for the client to stand mute and let the lawyers try to poke holes in the case...if they can...or work out the best deal possible under the circumstances.
Last edited by blues; 10-03-2019 at 12:41 PM.
There's nothing civil about this war.
JJRG posted about this over on FB.
Botham Jean's brother Brandt Jean forgave and embraced Amber Guyger after his victim impact statement.
https://youtu.be/dJH4adVazl4
Taking a break from social media.
I wrote trail vs trial in my post...
Reply With Quote