[sitetest]

Dear P-Marlowe,

I was under the impression that if the persecution argued good character on the part of the dead thug punk, the defense could present evidence to impeach that.

Is introducing the [false] concept that the dead thug punk was actually a little angel during closing some sort of loophole? What recourse does the defense have? Can they now use evidence of the dead thug punk's thug punkery during their closing, perhaps even showing some texts?

sitetest

[piytar]

It’s called arguing facts not in evidence, and it’s a slam dunk on appeal. See http://williampfeifer.com/2012/05/01/11/48/51/appeals/improper-closing-arguments-part-1-facts-not-in-evidence/1182

[P-Marlowe]

I was under the impression that if the persecution argued good character on the part of the dead thug punk, the defense could present evidence to impeach that.

The judge prohibited the defense from bringing in that evidence. Hence the defense can't use it in closing arguments. So BDLR can go on and on on what a sweet innocent little boy Martin was and if MOM says anything to refute that in his closing arguments he could be sanctioned or the judge could declare a mis-trial.

BDLR is just baiting the defense in hopes they make a big mistake tomorrow.

BDLR would like nothing more than having the judge declare a mistrial based on misconduct by the defense.