Comments on: Annals of prosecutorial stunts

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 17:21:11 +0000

It could have been that the defense figured the case was a dog, so why prolong the agony?

By: asdfasdf

asdfasdf — Fri, 26 Nov 2010 20:26:52 +0000

Not sure how many commenters/readers are lawyers, but it is routine and good practice for lawyers not to object at times to evidence whose consideration by the jury should be inadmissible. The reason given is that the act of objecting can make the jury focus more on the inadmissible evidence on the one hand and make the jury believe the defense is trying to keep out key evidence on the other. In closing arguments, as this was, traditionally more leeway is given to lawyers.

Here, the proper move seems to me to have been to move for a mistrial. The prosecutorial action was so extreme that it could not have been cured by a limiting instruction to the jury.

On the facts reported, I cannot understand why the verdict was upheld or why there was no move for a mistrial, if there was not.

By: Smart Dude

Smart Dude — Thu, 25 Nov 2010 19:11:58 +0000

” The defense lawyer failed to object”: Legal malpractice.

By: Jack Wilson

Jack Wilson — Thu, 25 Nov 2010 15:13:56 +0000

Good catch, captnhal

By: captnhal

captnhal — Thu, 25 Nov 2010 14:40:48 +0000

Singing “Happy Birthday” on TV requires paying royalties. Maybe the prosecutors will soon be defendants.