Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How long will they try to throw in "illegal parking" of his SUV just to get a conviction on something? This is going straight to the appeals court and this stupid judge may face removal from the bench.
How long will they try to throw in "illegal parking" of his SUV just to get a conviction on something? This is going straight to the appeals court and this stupid judge may face removal from the bench.
Why do you overlook all the times the judge has ruled in favor of the defense but insist on calling her stupid and other names when she rules for the state? Seems to me she's been pretty even handed and fair. She's doing a tough job. Cut her some slack on the name calling.
Thats his job. He is fighting for his client. You and I would do well to have an attorney do that if we were in similar circumstances. In over the several hundred times I've been in court as a witness for the state most defense attorneys just go thru the motions and let the state walk all over them.
Plus he is also giving time to his team for their research.
.
Having participated in trials over several hundred times myself, I disagree with your assessment. When the Judge rules on an issue, that's it. It is very unlikely that your legal researchers are going to come up with anything that will be brought up after the ruling that will change the ruling.
I agree that this defense team (mostly O'Mara, the lead attorney, has done an excellent job, including great strategy). However, even Mr. O'Mara has had to try to reign in Mr. West SEVERAL TIMES from further antagonizing the Judge. WHY would O'Mara do that if the strategy was to buy time by antagonizing the Judge?
They are not reducing, they are including according to the law. The Defense doesn't want what is standardized legal language included. The Defense is gambling with their Clients life...period.
Sure they are. They knew they didn't have enough to prove their case from the get-go and went the route of we'll wait until the end and add these lesser charges (that we didn't want to charge in the beginning because we'd look bad) and hope we can get something to appease the angry mobs and potential voters.
Anyone got a rope? Let's just lynch him now.
Was he just doing surveillance from an inconspicuous and safe-distance location?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
