"Keep an Open Mind"

That was Judge Irving's counsel to the jury at the close of Day 5 of Mann v. Steyn. Why would the Judge feel the need to state "keep an open mind" barely a week into the trial? Well, let us count the reasons.

The morning began with Mark back on the stand being "questioned" by the Plaintiff's council about the meaning of this word or that word and whether or not he had read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn when he was 10 (just kidding, though we would not have been surprised by such an inane question at this point).

Mark kept a smile on his face. And faced repugnant questions, and the implications thereof, such as if the Penn State scandal was "in [Mark's] wheelhouse." Mark's response: "I wouldn't say it was in my wheelhouse. I was morally revolted at what happened at Penn State... I don't recall the rape of middle school boys of being in my wheelhouse. I don't think you should have to have that in your wheelhouse. If it is in your wheelhouse, you should object to the rape of middle school boys."

Shortly thereafter is when it happened. When the prosecution of Mark Steyn became crystal clear.

Really?

—”You were a guest host for Sean Hannity, right?

—And you were a guest host for Rush Limbaugh, right?

—And you have also been a guest host for Tucker Carlson, right?

—And you had a contract with National Review, right?... And National Review influences a highly engaged audience of elected officials to opinion and business leaders?

—And did you drop out of high school?”

When they go down that road, that means they have nothing.

They are trying to make someone a bad person in the eye’s of the jury and are not arguing on facts. The argument goes as follows, find the defendant guilty because you don’t like him, because he’s XYZ.

Example: McDonald’s when they were sued for the coffee spill in an elderly ladies lap is just one such example. They made McDonald’s out as mean and calloused, unconcerned for some poor old lady. The witness testimony by the defense did not help even though it was factually correct. The jury in that case likely went against McDonald’s NOT because McDonald’s is culpable of anything (of course coffee is hot and she had it in her possession), but because they didn’t like McDonald’s.

From comments about the jury on Steyn’s opening statement, it sounded like they were very interested & taking notes. I hope they were impressed enough that this kind of nonsense will just annoy them. Steyn certainly sounded more ‘lawyerly’ than some others I’ve heard.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.