[bvw]

I remember seing yesterday a comment to the effect that by Feldman's in court demeanor, that he "signaled" to the jury the guilt of his client. I know that happens in cases. Lawyers sometimes have to represent sleazeballs worse than Westerfield is claimed to be (and I am not making that claim, just noting it). It is nigh impossible for and defense attorney's "body language", tone of voice, spirit of presntation hour-after-hour of a trial not to say something regarding a defendant being represented.

It is a an emotional subtext -- it requires and varies in effect on all sorts of uncontrollable things -- a spousal fight at the lawyers's home may look bad for the defendant. It may be real -- the lawyer may be in absolute dread and fear of his own client for good reason.

Yet this signalling is all emotional. Aside from video or audio tape, it is unrecorded in the record, and tapes do not record it important nuances of it well at all.

I ask if a person should be found guilty -- even if he is (a hypothetical case, remember) -- on the basis of emotional signalling, where honest, unbiased reviewers of the written record would overwhelming find not guilty?

That is, should Juries be conditioned, expected, and welcomed to find for guilt based on emotion?

[Ditter]

So you are saying, DW was found guilty because Feldman signaled (emotionaly) to the jury that DW was guilty.

Would it be better for Feldman *not* to have signaled (emotionaly) & succesfully gotten a guilty man off, so that he could continue murdering little girls?

I am leaving your hypothetical mutterings out of this.

[HiTech RedNeck]

That is, should Juries be conditioned, expected, and welcomed to find for guilt based on emotion?

Oh if you're a prosecutor yes yes yes. If you're a defense attorney no no no.