[Devil_Anse]

Okay, JH, I'm sorry I snapped at you. Apparently you are really asking this question.

Dragging people into court to testify? Well, Geragos can do that in this case. He can use subpoenas.

But I was talking about the fact that he is apparently trying to run a parallel investigation with that of the police. He appears to be re-doing what they have done so far. He is obviously going to try, among other things, a battle of the experts. (Spare us!)

B/F the preliminary hearing was set, the prosecutor was talking about maybe using a grand jury in this case. No sooner had the DA said that, than Geragos went around putting out word that the DEFENSE was going to give the prosecutors a list of witnesses that the DEFENSE wanted called in the grand jury. Unheard of! The defense has no such right! The state runs the grand jury, and that's that. They can do what they want with it, and the defense does not have a say. If the defense doesn't like what the grand jury produces, it can file a motion to dismiss the indictment. But the defense can't run the grand jury before the fact.

On other fronts, it appears that Geragos is surely lining up forensic experts who would presumably testify in a way which would bolster his crazy theory (which he plucked out of thin air) that "satanists" killed Laci and the baby. Thus, he will have his experts, and the state will have theirs. Parallel investigations. One negates the other.

Next thing, Geragos claims HE will SOLVE THIS CRIME. He's starting to sound like Joe Friday by this time. What the heck business is it of his--to solve crimes?? He is supposed to protect Scott's rights. He is not supposed to be going around pointing the finger at other people, some of whom might actually be innocent. Dangerous.

Then we hear that there is this "mystery woman" witness who Geragos says can tell us who "really" killed Laci. Then we hear that the defense "has her in their custody". Once again, it's making it sound as though the defense were a police agency in its own right. It's not.

The power to police is a function of the government. It is not something which is ordinarily given to private individuals. I have no great respect for our huge, swollen, overbearing government, but still, it does have some legitimate functions which belong solely to IT. And policing the citizens (and others) is one of those functions. For heaven's sake, we might as well have the government earning a small fraction of the money it sucks out of us, by performing the police work for us! One of its useful functions--for a change.

[Yaelle]

If I recall, half the stuff Johnny Cochran spewed in his opening testimony in the OJ case about "what the evidence was going to reveal" was untrue and never came up in court. Geragos knows that too. But, then again, with the right jury, who needs evidence?

[Jhoffa_]

I know you may find it unsavory, but the defense can call witnesses, force them to testify, put forth (ahem) "alternative" theories (which the judge may well disallow if they are over the top) call "expert" witnesses and so on and so forth.

A well represented defendant has allot of room to operate here, and MG is making the most of it.

It doesn't bother me. I like to see these things happen so that when the smoke clears no one has to second guess themselves and there's no remorse about the sentence.

Freedom is unique in the sense that we can't give it back.

You know, you can't come along later and tell someone: "Whoops, we screwed up.. here's your 10 years back." Once you take it, it's gone for good..

So I like to see these things and I like to be sure.