The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

briandg · January 13, 2018, 02:04 AM

The way I read that is sort of

'you won't weasel your way out of this' and 'give full disclosure and honesty' and in the end a jury will be inclined to hand down an honest verdict.

Imo, it would be quite literally impossible to hand down a correct verdict in good faith if the defendant jerks them around like that.

Maybe I'm wrong here. A jury votes based on the full body of the case as presented, and without completely disclosing information about the actual shooter, such as his physical and mental presentation and his actual statements about the incident, they do not have the foundation of the complaint.

You lawyers will be able to confirm this, there have been several high profile cases that have gone to appeal because the defendant screwed up his case's representation or represented himself.

Way back in the past, Charles Manson fired his lawyers, and demanded to represent himself, but the courts did something to stop it.

In anything but very simple low stakes cases, I believe that going without representation is just foolish. an untrained person is going into a contest with a professional. Thousands of hours, dozens of years, resources, every advantage is on the professional, and that attorney is bound to prosecuting that case with all of his skill.

Am I right?

People tend to wrongly believe that they can't be influenced or fooled, yet millions of companies still spend billions of dollars tricking the public into believing that their product is the right one to choose.

January 13, 2018, 02:04 AM	#130
briandg Senior Member Join Date: May 4, 2010 Posts: 5,468	The way I read that is sort of 'you won't weasel your way out of this' and 'give full disclosure and honesty' and in the end a jury will be inclined to hand down an honest verdict. Imo, it would be quite literally impossible to hand down a correct verdict in good faith if the defendant jerks them around like that. Maybe I'm wrong here. A jury votes based on the full body of the case as presented, and without completely disclosing information about the actual shooter, such as his physical and mental presentation and his actual statements about the incident, they do not have the foundation of the complaint. You lawyers will be able to confirm this, there have been several high profile cases that have gone to appeal because the defendant screwed up his case's representation or represented himself. Way back in the past, Charles Manson fired his lawyers, and demanded to represent himself, but the courts did something to stop it. In anything but very simple low stakes cases, I believe that going without representation is just foolish. an untrained person is going into a contest with a professional. Thousands of hours, dozens of years, resources, every advantage is on the professional, and that attorney is bound to prosecuting that case with all of his skill. Am I right? People tend to wrongly believe that they can't be influenced or fooled, yet millions of companies still spend billions of dollars tricking the public into believing that their product is the right one to choose. __________________ None.