SNOW GORILLA,
Not according to the jury.
BA-BLAM!!!"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^that suggests nothing more than that what matters is what the jury verdict was, NOT if the accused did or didn't do it.
Congrat Law Dog, you're the man!!!!
Nice work fella
"As I recall, you were telling Mayhem to shut up about his court case. Now here you are exposing your client to potential civil liablility"
I am an attorney and I am not speaking about myself being involved in a pending criminal matter. I exposed no one and said nothing that could be used against anyone in a civil case. I disclosed a public record of a jury trial where my client was found not guilty. Simple as that.
"What about the person your client assaulted? She deserved it, right?"
The alleged victim was a male, not female, and no one deserves to be assualted. By the way, the State did not prove that there was even an assault that occurred.
Law dog,
Impressed, very impressed!
Pat M.
Law Dog,
Did you ask for the court reporter to be present for the sidebar? Was the sidebar on the record?
Were you defending a forum member?
Again, nice move.
-jk
Great argument - the prosecutor basically set himself up for a fall by giving you the opening which you took so beautifully - good work....!!!
GF
Conrad, sounds like your typical ADA, I deal w/ them often and some just aren't that swift. Nice job.
ok, I'm confussed about something. NASCAR drivers Speed and get into wrecks all the time. So they Would be more likely to drive reckless.
no?
"ok, I'm confussed about something. NASCAR drivers Speed and get into wrecks all the time. So they Would be more likely to drive reckless.
no? "
No. They are professionals who routinely drive 180+ mph in some cases no more than a foot or two from each other on all sides. They have more control over a vehicle than the average person could even imagine. Driving 55 mph where you have at least a car length or two would be something that, using the logic of the opposing attorney, would be almost impossible for them to be the cause of a wreck.
"Law Dog,
Did you ask for the court reporter to be present for the sidebar? Was the sidebar on the record?"
Yes, the court reporter was present for the sidebar and it was all on record. I always have the court reporter be present when the sidebar involves a potentially appealable issue, which this certainly was.
"Were you defending a forum member?"
No, I don't think he is a forum member.
Law Dog, I had an incident similiar, but Im on the opposite side(law enforcement.) A lawyers client attempted to dive at my legs and take me down on the street. When case went to court, the lawyer kept bringing up the fact that Im involved in bjj. Not sure what his angle was, but it gave me a great amount of credibility. I even told the court that Im not that good(only a blue belt.) It was just nice to see it work to my advantage.
Great job
"The victim can't testify to whether the defendant was an MMA fighter"
"Sure he/she can. If the prosecutor asks the alleged victim how he knows the defendant, the alleged victim can say, "I wacthed him fight in some cage fights." And there you have it, the jury has heard the testimony, and no matter what the judge instructs after that, the jury will always know that the defendant is a "violent" cage fighter.
That's why I objected before the alleged victim could even answer any questions. That's the difference from paper law (simply reading the law) and trial law (actually practicing the law)."
SMOOOOTHH! i love it
""ok, I'm confussed about something. NASCAR drivers Speed and get into wrecks all the time. So they Would be more likely to drive reckless. no? "
No. They are professionals who routinely drive 180+ mph in some cases no more than a foot or two from each other on all sides. They have more control over a vehicle than the average person could even imagine. Driving 55 mph where you have at least a car length or two would be something that, using the logic of the opposing attorney, would be almost impossible for them to be the cause of a wreck."
But in the context of speeding, it is "reckless" at a certain speed--whether safe or not according to most statutes. This is why I don't understand the analogy--like JudoMo. It would seem to be the inverse to me.
Important thing is the Judge agreed!
"He was asked whether the client actually assaulted the victim. He could have simply said "no." Instead he said "not according to the jury BA-BLAM." That suggests the client did assault the victim and got off, espcially the "BA-BLAM" remark. Let's put it this way. If you were the client facing a possible civil suit, would you be happy if your attorney said such a thing? Of course not. You would want him to vigorously proclaim your innocence.
LOL, the "BA-BLAM" remark was a joke in direct reference to an earlier post. By the way, in a jury trial, an attorney will rarely "vigoriously proclaim your innocence." The attorney will focus on whether the State has proved their case, and in this case, they did not.
"Here at best it is ambigous whether or not he is actually innocent."
A jury of 8 citizens UNAMBIGUOUSLY proclaimed my client's innocence. Dismissed with prejudice. Enough said.
BOOOYA!!!!
I'd like to see Law Dog and MRMAKO fight each other.
seems theres a logical fallacy in saying "pro fighters are prone to violence"
"seems theres a logical fallacy in saying "pro fighters are prone to violence"
Absolutely. This is why Law Dog was the Pimp to object.
you rock, ill make sure i contact you if im in trouble....but im a good boy