[small_l_libertarian]

He's sick. Seriously, I think that to lie, bend the truth, twist (innocent) statements, twist the words of the law (jury instructions) just to get a win (especially if your winning means a man is going to die) is the very definition of evil. Or wicked. Isn't that bearing false witness or something? It's just something I can't even comprehend.

I mean, if you're so sure you have the right guy, don't you have some actual EVIDENCE you could present instead of putting on a disgusting sideshow for the jury? If you're so sure of your facts, why do you have to misrepresent to the jury what they're supposed to do in the jury room?

I completely agree - if he told me to get off the fence and join the mob, I'd tell him to bite me. He'd never get any cooperation from me, no way, no how.

[shezza]

Ping! Summons for "jury duty" in five minutes.

[Krodg]

The part that really got to me was him saying he didn't have to prove how it happened. I'd be thinking, 'Uh Oh, he can't prove it!!'

[NatureGirl]

if he told me to get off the fence and join the mob, I'd tell him to bite me

My sentiments exactly. Wouldn't have mattered which side it came from, though. If Feldman had directed that comment at someone who thought DW was guilty, I'd still feel the same way.

Isn't it something? On one side, we have Dusek (who we can consider to be somewhat conservative, because he's fighting for the law and what's supposed to be right) saying things like, "If everyone else thinks one thing, and you think another, maybe YOU'RE wrong".

Then Feldman (who is doing work for NORML, and could probably be described as a lefty) stresses to the jury their responsibility as individuals, and how important their opinion of the evidence is - and points out things from the Constitution.

Black is white, up is down.