[VRWC_minion]

But that's the exact opposite of what the jury instructions say

You are making an assumption that doesn't agree with the closing arguments. The unchallenged explanation on this was made in various ways by Feldman. He did it by expressing it and he did it by two example, a rope and the cheater at 21.

His explanation as well as his examples were never challenged by either the judge or the defense.

Assuming this is the approach to be made to the evidence, would you arrive at a different conclusion ? I think any reasonable person would have to.

[small_l_libertarian]

It makes no difference what Dusek said in closing argument - that's argument, not testimony, not law, and not jury instruction. The jury instruction says that they have to consider each fact or circumstance on its own merits. The judge read the jury these instructions. Are you saying that Dusek knows better than the judge what the jury is supposed to do?

[Jrabbit]

Sorry, but Dusek used the 21 example.

[SilentWitness]

I think in closing arguments, each side has a lot of lattitude. The jugde did not object to Feldman's constant use of "individual fact" approach, either.

[fnord]

Dusek's constant objections probably work against him.

The jury is smart enough to know to take opening and closing arguments with a grain of salt (look at Dusek's opening and note the absence of delivery on his 'promises').

Feldman was probably playing a hunch that by not objecting he would like the wiser and more confident attorney. Dusek looked plenty worried ... his whole career is tied to this turd he was handed. So sad, too bad.

[Krodg]

Excuse me, but Duesk was holding the rope and the judge never lets him down.

Back to your rant.