Quote:
Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast
Then ZNP, if you're sincere about wanting to participate here in this "mock trial", please understand that "all the evidence" has not been presented. I didn't take the time to go through the book and gather everything I could on each topic individually to present to you. Frankly, I don't have the time to do that. There is a LOT left to read, and the book goes back to topics periodically to present supporting evidence. Any judgements you wish to render (IE: "sloppy research") really need to be left to the END of the trial. Judges don't allow hecklers to keep shouting "guilty!" while the trial is still underway - and they won't pronounce judgement until the last of the evidence is in and has been weighed.
|
Really? How about "objection!" Lawyers object often, many times for no reason other than to make it difficult for you to speak. What about motions, these are designed to make you run around and do research and file petitions, and show up in court, and make one little mistake and the trial is thrown out.
Lawyers will object to evidence as to the relevance. They will object to the way in which it is entered as evidence. They will object to the credibility.
Do you really think OJ would have been found not guilty if the evidence that the TV viewers saw was shown to the jury? The first rule is to prevent the evidence ever being presented.
Don't you find it ironic that "frankly I don't have time to do that" is basically the same reason that Duddy ultimately folded?
Here on the forum we are focused on truth. Law courts are focused on "winning" which is often measured in dollars.