Former Attorney Says Defense Is 'Strong'Kirk McAllister Is Protecting Key Witnesses

NBC11 ^ | May 1, 2003 | Karen Brown

[Spunky]

I seem to have been dropped from your ping list, as I never got this thread.

The only way I know it exists as I was looking to see where a certain poster was.

Will you please put me back on?

[Devil_Anse]

One of the things I took a while to learn, in criminal cases, was that just because a defendant has a squeaky-clean prior record (no convictions for anything), doesn't mean that that defendant should necessarily testify.

Some people may be as innocent as the driven snow of the crime charged, but for some reason they just can't tell a straight, coherent story on the witness stand. They end up looking like they are hiding something; sometimes they come off as too eager to explain themselves, or they may be focusing too much on subject matter which is not legally relevant to their case. Such people should not take the witness stand; even having the jury secretly wonder about them is better than watching them tell some convoluted story up there.

[Devil_Anse]

In my opinion, the point here IS terminology. I already knew that the defense gets surrebuttal. But they only get it if the plaintiff/prosecution puts on rebuttal. Never does the defense get rebuttal.

[Devil_Anse]

Gag, gag, gag. Sorry, all those fair people out there. I'm not even thinking at the moment of his possibly being a murderer. I'm thinking, look at this guy, look how he acted, knowing that he was already committed to someone else. And that he had a son on the way.

[Devil_Anse]

Great. So now potential jurors out there are going to be thinking that Scott must prove his innocence? When, in fact, his burden is not that large? What kind of nut IS Geragos, to say such a thing?

[runningbear]

I did ping ya... You must of fell off in the pinging cyberspace..... hummm, just can't figure why some do or some didn't .... Let me know.. Did you get the one today?

[Spunky]

"Did you get the one today?"

If this is the one you are talking about, "Calif. Family Renews Search for Boy" yes I received it.

I don't know what happened on the other one. Thanks for all your work in keeping us informed.

[runningbear]

I just pinged ya on the other one...

[EastCoast]

On Rita Cosby's show tonight, the same question you ask was posed on Rita's show. They were talking a million or more dollars, but Jeffrey Feigler (Kervorkian's atty) didn't believe it. He believes Geragos is pro bono or no more than one dollar. He explained that Scaught couldn't afford an atty and had to have public defenders without any word from his family about hiring an atty, leaving the impression that the money was not there for a private atty. And Geragos is a high-priced lawyer.

Then, all of a sudden, Geragos shows up as Scaught's atty hired by the family. This led Jeffrey F. to believe the case is pro bono. He went on to say that we'll be able to tell if it is pro bono. Experts, testing, autopsies, and everything else that goes along with a capital offense trial like this cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Unlikely to have all of this with a pro bono case.

To make matters worse IMO, according to another atty, Geragos will need an assistant experienced in capital offense trials since he may not have that experience. That will cost another bundle. I guess we'll have to wait and see. Do you know if this trial will be on Court TV? I'd love to hear Nancy Grace report that one!

BTW, Jeffrey said the Amber Frey evidence alone will convict SP...there was enough there, a lot...plus all the other evidence the LE have. But the Amber evidence would do him in.

[EastCoast]

I heard another atty say that he didn't think Geragos had capital offense trial experience. Said that these trials were different from all other trials and the atty should have capital offense trial experience because the life of his client is in jeopardy. (MSNBC)

[alexandria]

I seem to have been dropped from your ping list, as I never got this thread.

LOL!! This isn't the first time this has happened. Hey RB! You got a "leak" in your ping thingy!! :o)

BTW, are you going to the memorial tomorrow?

[uvular]

I don't remember Geragos having any high profile murder cases he handled; he missed having to do much more than p.r. for Condit. Interesting point about having to 'hire' yet another attorney. Almost sounds like Scott would have been better off with the court appointed attornies! I doubt at this point Geragos can entice any other attorney to jump on board (other than that one female atty. that's on Greta's show alot).

I bet even if Court TV can't cover the trial on tv, Nancy Grace will be sitting in that courtroom!

[Spunky]

"BTW, are you going to the memorial tomorrow?"

A little far for me to go, since I live in Washington State now.

Ooops! after re-reading I see you were probably asking RB.

[alexandria]

"BTW, are you going to the memorial tomorrow?"

Opps! Sorry about that. Yes, I had thought I was asking RB about it. Note to self: always check the chainof information flow before posting!