Kind of getting OT, but it's pretty slow around here and we've talked about everything else, so I hope you guys don't mind.
I've been reading about Jim Voyles, JR's attorney over my coffee this morning -- It's pretty interesting to learn what kinds of strategies and approaches he's taken with other clients and cases. In one case, one of his clients was acquitted on a murder charge, partly because he said his car was being repaired so he couldn't have been at the crime scene. No one could remember him bringing in the car, but he produced a cash receipt. (Hmmm, a coincidence, I'm sure -- but just pointing that out
)
And I found this article on a different case, which gives some good insight into some of Voyles' strategies and approaches and shows how rumors in the media can be used to the advantage of a defense team.
http://www.indianapolismonthly.com/features/Story.aspx?ID=1447543
The article describes how Voyles plays the part of the "country lawyer", holding open doors for jury members and bringing magazines to the judge and prosecutors when he found out they shared an interest in cars
The article goes on to explain how he did this, by challenging the timeline and trying to debunk the cell phone data that put his client at the scene of the crime (basically just by saying cell phone data is flawed).
The article also talks about how rumors in the media played a key role. After an anonymous source was quoted in an article saying the victim had mob connections, the media ran with it and it became a key premise of the defense case:
(This makes me think about how quickly drug rumors started by friends of the POI on PT were reported by the media and became unquestioned 'facts' in Lauren's case, leading to the accidental overdose/ coverup scenario as being the leading theory (to do with the POI) and the victim blaming that went along with that -- It's a good warning about how easily rumors can shape perceptions, with very little evidence)
On #Winning
I've been reading about Jim Voyles, JR's attorney over my coffee this morning -- It's pretty interesting to learn what kinds of strategies and approaches he's taken with other clients and cases. In one case, one of his clients was acquitted on a murder charge, partly because he said his car was being repaired so he couldn't have been at the crime scene. No one could remember him bringing in the car, but he produced a cash receipt. (Hmmm, a coincidence, I'm sure -- but just pointing that out
And I found this article on a different case, which gives some good insight into some of Voyles' strategies and approaches and shows how rumors in the media can be used to the advantage of a defense team.
http://www.indianapolismonthly.com/features/Story.aspx?ID=1447543
Jim Voyles has a rule. “I never advise my clients to speak to police,” he says. “The opposite. Now, after I interview the client and I know something about the case, if I think it’s an advantage to sit down with the police to clear up some kind of a problem, I might suggest we do it.”
The article describes how Voyles plays the part of the "country lawyer", holding open doors for jury members and bringing magazines to the judge and prosecutors when he found out they shared an interest in cars
But Voyles’s folksy style belied a shrewd understanding of the evidence and how to spin it to a jury. It might have been just a coincidence that Tunks was at the scene of the murder, close to the time when the murder might have occurred. But that’s some coincidence. So Voyles challenged the prosecution’s assumptions about where Tunks was and when the victim was killed.
The article goes on to explain how he did this, by challenging the timeline and trying to debunk the cell phone data that put his client at the scene of the crime (basically just by saying cell phone data is flawed).
The article also talks about how rumors in the media played a key role. After an anonymous source was quoted in an article saying the victim had mob connections, the media ran with it and it became a key premise of the defense case:
Finally, Detective Delaney’s references to “organized crime” and “hitmen” in the report describing the crime scene, and witness testimony that Marcucci liked to brag about having underworld connections, gave the proceedings a mob-trial flair, much to the dismay of Grootenboer, the lead prosecutor in the case. “Our case was completely dogged by this inaccurate misconception of Mr. Marcucci being a mob figure,” she says. “A newspaper article said ‘a high-ranking law enforcement source’ said this was a mob guy. Who the heck was it? It always troubled me because, based on one article, this became a ‘mob’ case. And I thought our detectives did an excellent job of debunking that.” Accurate or not, the mere suggestion of Mafia involvement helped Voyles and Jennings highlight the possibility that someone far more sinister than a small-town Hoosier like Tunks had committed the crime.
(This makes me think about how quickly drug rumors started by friends of the POI on PT were reported by the media and became unquestioned 'facts' in Lauren's case, leading to the accidental overdose/ coverup scenario as being the leading theory (to do with the POI) and the victim blaming that went along with that -- It's a good warning about how easily rumors can shape perceptions, with very little evidence)
On #Winning
Known for staying mum in the media, Voyles let Jennings handle the task of giving statements to the press throughout most of the trial—until that day of the verdict, when he told The Record that he was “thrilled with the victory” and “happy to take my client home to Indiana.” He says he earned “well over six figures” for his work on Tunks’s behalf, but when he stands in his office looking at that picture, the money doesn’t seem to matter. He has trouble describing the satisfaction he gets from winning such a dramatic acquittal. “You savor those feelings, because they are sometimes far between,” he says. “The birth of a child would be a little more important.” But just a little.