southcitymom
Well-Known Member
hmm i would think the truth would work for me. defend his client with the truth. say we have no 1 who witnessed the crime. say we have no dna. say their is no photo's. point out why the boys might lie. do not play with words to say he has never been convicted of a crime like this when you know he has. i dont want a DA like in the duke case who lies. it is not justice. i dont want a guy like Geragos who lies to a jury because rules of evidence keep the truth away from them. he should force the DA to prove his case and impeach the evidence they supply with some sort of ethics.
That's why I'd like to know exactly what he said, sherri79. If he said "My client has never ever been in this type of trouble before" in opening arguments, that's NOT evidence. Also, did he say "My client has never ever been in this type of trouble before" or did he say "The evidence will show my client has never been in this type of trouble before."
These may seem like semantics, but they are important.
Additionally, the Judge will (or should if the Pros is on the ball) charge the jury that what the attorneys say is not evidence and shouldn't be considered as such AND that just because someone has never been convicted of a certain type of crime before is not proof of anything.
I would love anyone familiar with such things to comment on whether or not attorneys are allowed to knowingly lie in opening and closinmg arguments. It seems to me that you'd be shooting yourself (and your client) in the foot to lie during opening or closing and then not come up with the evidence to support your lie, but is purposefully lying against any rule.