[mvpel]

As much as my heart goes out to these victims, this kind of trial tactic is simply inflammatory and prejudicial, and has no probative value whatsoever.

None of the people testifying about their personal loss have any independent knowledge at all as to who carried out the attacks, who handled the logistics, who paid the bills, or any of that.

I could see putting them on the stand once the verdict had been determined and they were trying to decide whether to put the convicted terrorist to death, but now? It's grandstanding, and that's not something that should be part of a fair trial.

[OldFriend]

IT HAS VALUE TO THE FAMILIES AND THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERS.

Sorry if that's too inflamatory for you!

[Tamzee]

Actually, it is an entirely relevant and sometimes critical step in a trial. A typical part of the defense's "strategy" is to deflect attention as much as possible from the murder victim's identity, dignity and worth as a person. The more the defense can make the jury feel like they are actually hearing about a "parking ticket" versus a life snuffed out, the better chance they have at gaining sympathy for their client's stated "defense" story.

It will continue this way as long as courts use an "adversarial" attorney system where a jury is presented to two opposite versions of "truth" regarding an event and expect the poor jurists to expertly navigate all the smoke and mirrors - unless the American Bar Association starts actually putting it's money where it's mouth is and strictly enforces an ethics code that outlaws any attorney from blatantly lying in a courtroom. Everyone else in court is subject to severe penalties for any type of knowing falsehood or deceit.... except the defense attorney (who are sworn officers of the court in the U.S.A).

And that's why you have to "humanize" the murder victim during a trial....

Tammy

[hchutch]

Well, I'm all broke up about that terrorist's rights. What about the rights of those killed on 9/11? Who speaks for them?

Sorry, but the folks who died on 9/11 didn't get a fair trial, and I really couldn't care less if we bend the rules a little in the process of taking down terrorists.

[caisson71]

C'mon. This whole "smoking gun" requirement is grandstanding. We have testimony from Saddam's "bombmaker' to the Senate and on public TV, information from defectors, list of bombmaking material from countries like France, Germany, Russia, etc. Everyone realizes the opposition to Bush's plan has more to do with the 2004 elections and the reenergized anti-America crowd. "Proof", aside from another twin towers, will never be sufficient to those who cannot accept they are wrong.

[Humidston]

I could see putting them on the stand once the verdict had been determined and they were trying to decide whether to put the convicted terrorist to death...

I may be mistaken, but I believe Germany has no death penalty, and if so, your comment isn't germanine.