Plausible Nifong strategy here:
http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=9ad5d1460385732eb72977b69aa2d253&topic=34.msg1395#msg1395
Re: If you were the prosecutor...
« Reply #11 on: July 24, 2006, 08:43:13 PM »
The most crucial phase of the trial will be jury-selection. Though I will have the help of a sympathetic judge, who will allow all sorts of disqualifications "for cause", there's a limit to how much I can ask him to do for me. So I'll have to use some peremptory challenges. If I'm lucky, I'll have me an all-black jury; if I have to allow some whites, I can at least see to it that they are all native 10th generation Durhamites.
It will be important to make a strong opening statement. Nothing I say in an opening statement about what the evidence will show has to be true, so I can really let myself go. With an all-black jury the structure of the statement should be essentially "see how white they are", a factoid, "see how white they are", a factoid, and so on. With a mixed jury, I'll have to throw in an occasional "they're yankees --- as you'll be able to hear for yourselves if any of them opens his mouth".
I will have to put Precious on the stand. She's an excellent actress, almost fooled me the first time we met, with her "I haven't had sex in a week" and so on. (Of course, if I'd done my homework and read the witness statements, maybe she wouldn't have.) She should be told to let herself go, to the point of hysteria if necessary, but better avoid that on examination-in-chief, because we'll have to use it to get a court recess whenever an embarrassing line of questioning gets going on cross. Of course, my friend on the bench will exclude a lot of evidence that would impreach her, so the main worry will be her contradicting herself on the stand. Also, better keep her locked up away from alcohol and flexeril --- not to mention anything stronger --- for a couple of days before she appears. Don't want her so blotto she forgets that her "attackers" are the ones sitting at the table with the defense attorneys. Luckily none of the lawyers on that side is so young she might get him mixed up with one of the players.
I'm going to need a couple more expert witness than I've listed so far. The judge will let me stall on giving the list, but only for so long, so I'd better get cracking --- or get one of my staff cracking.
Baker and Chalmers are leaning on the first-responder cops to deny that Precious ever changed her story, and say they just misunderstood her. But we don't have the same leverage over the medical personal.
A SANE nurse has presumably had a lot of ideological indoctrination, but there's a danger she may have some professional ethics. Better check if there are any warrants out on her. I think in the end I can't rely just on Livecy to give the "rape trauma syndrome explains away all contradictions in Precious's statements, both with each other and with the results of the medical exam" line. I'll need another "expert" feminist.
Also, of course, someone who'll say the photos are doctored. There are lots of PI's who'll be willing to say it without much of an expert-witness fee. Better get Linwood to line one up for me.
My highest priority in the next months will be to lean on Nikki to take back that "I didn't see a rape and will never say I saw a rape" remark. If she'll go all the way backing Precious, fine (except for the danger that Precious doesn't testify as rehearsed and Nikki testifies agreeing what Precious was supposed to say and not what she did say). If she'll only go part way (only as far as she has done so far, hinting around about a time window and a date-rape drug), I'll need to give a lot of thought to the pros and cons before deciding wether to put her on.
So much for my case. In cross-examing the defense witnesses, I have to use a combination of constant sliming over the use of racial epithets, the real cotton shirt and the fictious n-word --- parenthetically, that means I'll have to rely on Himan rather than Gottlieb in my own case --- with quibbling over details and definitions of words. There are some posters on one of those pesky blogs who are very good at this. I don't know if I can hire them as consultants off the books, but they seem eager enough to see these boys get a shiv in the ribs that they'll probably do it for free if I ask, and be honored by my request.
My strong point, of course, is that I don't really need to have a case of my own, and don't really need to answer the defense case. NC law says the case has to go to the jury if there's an accuser and an identification. The jurors don't have to agree when, where, why, and how the rape took place. They just have to believe --- or pretend to believe --- that it did. (And for that it's enough if Precious is in good form on the stand, and I don't let the jurors forget what rich white yankees the accused are, which I certainly won't.) I'll have to hammer this home in my closing statement, and get the judge to hammer it some more in his charge to the jury.
If the Father of Lies rewards my constant service to Him, I should get at least 10 jurors on my side, enough to cow the others. A year from now I'll should have three dead ex-lax-players after a racial gang-fight in the supermax, and a promotion to a judgeship. If not, I'll get a hung jury and have to try again. But that's not so bad, after all. It will give me something to do other than attend to the boring administrative tasks of my job, and keep my name before the public. Remember, there's no such thing as bad publicity.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2006, 09:16:25 PM by Photios »
Excellent. Thanks for sharing that. Sadly, there is probably a very ;arge truth to it.
Enough to cow the others.
That is what happens on Juries - that is Jury dynamics.
Many jurors - even 3 days later - when separated from the others on the Jury will deviate from their opinion and say they were wrong; however, in the presence of those Jurors they cannot and will not stand up to them.
Psychologists studying this phenomenon say it's very common.
How many white jurors (3 I think) in the Michael Jackson trial came out within a week and said they thought he was a child molester and they had made a mistake. Yet, with the other Juror members in a post-trial press conference they had a TOTALLY different tune.
I have seen this effect close up.