|
Chimp_On_Stilts posted:They're trying to invoke the "he was no angel" defense - basically, show that the victim did something (anything) illegal, immoral, or in any way less than Eagle Scout behavior. Persons who are inclined to defend the police will then use this to show that the victim had it coming / deserved it / was not entitled to the same degree of protection under law as a "straight laced" citizen, etc. Exactly this; and the prosecution knows that this sort of testimony could be problematic for them if left unchallenged, so they pushed back by showing that the witness is getting out over his skis offering an opinion on that matter.
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2021 17:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 10:02 |
|
|
Relentless posted:From what I can tell, this is his legal team covering their asses. There's no argument left when they get a ruling back from the court of "After checking all 13 complaints, he's still going to jail". If they didn't appeal, then in a couple of years he might be able to argue "Well, my defense at the time didn't REALLY defend me that well, so I want a retrial on those grounds." and start the whole shitshow up again. Sorta. It's likely not so much rear end-covering in a direct sense as it is what's called "preservation of error." In short, if you didn't object to a matter when it first comes up (or if you fail to get a clear ruling from the judge and just kind of roll with it) you usually can't raise that matter on appeal. So, if you have arguments you want to make on appeal (or at least want to ensure that you will have that opportunity) you need raise the matter when the opportunity comes up under the applicable rules of procedure. Lawyers will frequently make pro forma objections or file motions they know the trial judge will deny just to get the denial on the record and preserve their client's appeal rights. As long as what the objection or motion is non-frivolous, this is just an accepted part of being a competent trial lawyer. EDIT: And sometimes judge's will "appeal-proof" their overall rulings by granting motions or sustaining objections from the losing side that don't really change the overall outcome of the case, just so they have fewer avenues for appeal. Aegis fucked around with this message at 17:43 on May 5, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 5, 2021 17:39
|
|
|
Relentless posted:All I'm reading is "Lawyers and judges have an entire rulebook about rear end-covering.". Multiple rulebooks; and whole classes taught from them.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2021 18:16
|
|
