The prosecutor’s hairdo tells me all I need to know about him.
The prosecutor’s hairdo tells me all I need to know about him.
Do you really want to use hairdo to evaluate people? Does it trump other criteria?
About the trial - I think even the prosecution witnesses speak to reasonable doubt and self-defense.
That was my general takeaway too. Criminal trial strategy definitely isn’t my lane, but I know some prosecutors think it’s better to bring out bad evidence in direct early so they can attempt to soften the blow rather than having it dropped as a bomb by the defense. @vcdgrips can probably better explain. Sometimes you’re also stuck with an unfriendly witness that you need to establish an element of the offense. If the prosecution doesn’t meet its burden of production on all the elements, then the defense doesn’t even have to present evidence as to that charge. The judge will simply strike it on a motion from the defense after the prosecution rests.Originally Posted by 5pins
Lol I saw what you did there.
We could isolate Russia totally from the world and maybe they could apply for membership after 2000 years.
The important role of physical appearance has been hammered into me by every attorney and judge I’ve ever worked with. Virginia won’t even allow someone to sit for the bar if their attire is inappropriate. I don’t generally have to go into court, but if I did, I would shave (I generally have a beard). It’s a distraction that can negatively affect your client, so it should be avoided as part of your obligation to provide zealous representation.
If we can’t make jokes about a middle-aged Prosecutor showing up to court with a haircut that looks like he’s going to an audition for an early 2000’s boy-band then all is truly lost.
From a potential jurors perspective I honestly would be staring at that haircut and thinking wtf kind of weird delayed adolescence is that dude going through. It makes me think of the Steve Buscemi meme
A good friend and AUSA I used to work with quite a bit in the Southern District of FL used to have to put a band-aid on her ankle, where she had a small, tasteful tattoo of a dolphin, whenever she went to court before a judge or magistrate.
There's nothing civil about this war.
I have not been following the trial closely at all. I did catch a bit of the jury selection process and various clips of testimony. Individually, a juror can miss something over the course of a witness exchange etc. Collectively, they miss very little -about both the evidence and the appearance/manner of those involved in the trial, particularly the attys.
I was struck by the prosecutor picking a jury in a subtle black on blue pattern dress shirt with matching tie and pocket square. Kind of Gucci meets Lumberjack.
I like to be well dressed in Court. I fear that sometimes we confuse "well dressed" with "stylish" as those are not the same thing.
Never is a long time word. I would NEVER pick a jury or be in a jury trial in anything other than a solid white or solid blue shirt. PERIOD.
1st day of Court w a jury-Red Tie/White Shirt/Blue Suit/Black Shoes. Any "stylishness" is limited to a white pocket square and obviously shined shoes. Subtle watch. 1 ring. DOJ Seal lapel pen.
No other visible jewelry.
2nd day-Maroon tie/Blue Shirt/Grey Suit/Maroon Shoes. 3rd day and beyond are variations on day one and two. All of my stuff is clean, pressed, well tailored and shined as applicable.
Witnesses being called by the prosecution and what they testify to:
1. Josh is right. I like to front bad facts about the testimony and/or the person to the jury sooner v. later. If I do not, the defense on cross examination certainly is going to and then make hay with that in their closing as well.
2. In many high profile cases, key witnesses have already given a statement to the police, sometimes a follow up, to the investigators of the attys on both sides during trial prep, the media and maybe even a grand jury. Everyone should have a pretty good idea about what they are going testify to. I should know what they are going to say and have a plan to mitigate bad facts as much as possible.
3. Some witnesses are just not going to be a good witness for you on every element but their overall value to the case outweighs their "baggage." Simply put, if I don't call that witness, a good defense is going to anyway.
4. Finally, I have a legal and moral obligation to present the truth to the jury and the Court in the form of admissible evidence. Sometimes, the truth hurts.
I am not your attorney. I am not giving legal advice. Any and all opinions expressed are personal and my own and are not those of any employer-past, present or future.
Thank you.
There's nothing civil about this war.
Is it normal for the prosecuting attorney and the defendent to have the same hair cut?
