on the one and only charge. I only second chaired this one, but I'm claiming total victory. I argued the motions in liminie, motions that were made entirely from taking other attorneys motions and placing the defendant's name into them. The judge felt the need to chastise me for them and insult my evidence professor for not teaching me evidence correctly. What sucked is that the judge was right the motion was wrong and misunderstood the rules of evidence. But I did as this job has taught me, stood there and took it, thanked the judge and moved on. I got to object a lot more at this trial than in my last trial.
I left the following as a comment to my previous post, but I feel the need to post it here to better clarify what actually happened in my previous case. I really need to edit this thing a little better.
I didn't wink wink or nudge nudge. Nor did I advise him to lie. I can see how my post kind of came across like that. To clarify I only asked him if his story was in fact more like the story in the police report. When I said "if you were X" I was referring to what was said in the police report, I didn't suggest a wild new story that came out of nowhere. I wanted to make sure he wasn't lying to me to make me think he was innocent so I explained that even if things were like they read in the police report we could still mount an effective defense.
I didn't advise him to lie. I informed him that he didn't need to tell me a better story than the one contained in the police report. I really think he thought that his story needed to be about complete innocence. My questions to him were to explain that even if what he said didn't paint him as 100% angel we could still mount a defense.
No comments:
Post a Comment