Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Krodg
That would be referring to the "admitted untruthfullness" you think? I agree, confusing, but evidently the lawyers know who they're talking about.

I wonder if the judge gives the instructions, then during closing the lawyers point out the "who" and the "what" as it refers to untruthfulness.

346 posted on 08/02/2002 9:48:54 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies ]


To: cyncooper
The single biggest point Desek made against Dr. Hall:

Q. HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A LAWYER?
A. FIVE YEARS.
Q. AND YOU'VE TESTIFIED SINCE YOU'VE BECOME A LAWYER?
A. YES, I HAVE.
347 posted on 08/02/2002 10:05:59 PM PDT by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies ]

To: cyncooper
I been searching the Hall testimony for the supposed Dusek gotchya, but I can't find it. What are these TV experts talking about that Dusek got Hall to agree with him about 2/2-2/3?
348 posted on 08/02/2002 10:09:32 PM PDT by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies ]

To: cyncooper
I think the lawyers will try to point out the untruths but I'm not sure what will be allowed in. I'm not sure the lawyers have quite the free reign in closing that many people think they do.
351 posted on 08/02/2002 10:25:56 PM PDT by Krodg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson