He should have let the whole thing play before stopping and doing all of this technical questioning
i can see it just fine on the PBS News Hour youtube streamcrowman2010 said:
Why aren't we able to see the video?
Totally agree.lunchbox said:
IMO, the defense is doing itself a disservice by not having a more tech-savvy attorney asking the questions...
100 percent nailed it. It's all bluster if you're not going to do something about it.YellAg2004 said:
I know multiple lawyers on here have cringed at how...cavalier...Binger has been with regards to known 3rd rails of legal practice, but at the same time, other than getting a tongue lashing, nothing happens.
Got a link?BlackGoldAg2011 said:i can see it just fine on the PBS News Hour youtube streamcrowman2010 said:
Why aren't we able to see the video?
If the jury is older it may be ok.lunchbox said:
IMO, the defense is doing itself a disservice by not having a more tech-savvy attorney asking the questions...
PBS is showing it, WaPo isn't showing the exhibit video.BlackGoldAg2011 said:i can see it just fine on the PBS News Hour youtube streamcrowman2010 said:
Why aren't we able to see the video?
Quote:
IMO, the defense is doing itself a disservice by not having a more tech-savvy attorney asking the questions...
said:Got a link?BlackGoldAg2011 said:i can see it just fine on the PBS News Hour youtube streamcrowman2010 said:
Why aren't we able to see the video?
Yes, but do not strenuously object a second time.4stringAg said:
For lawyers, is it a strategy to object during expert witness testimony to disrupt the flow and impact for the jury?
this is why I believe a mistrial with prejudice should have occurred and then the judge just has to be strong and let the political chips fall where they may and deal with the fallout. Yeah, he's going to be called a pawn for the defense but he's going to get that anyway because the prosecutor has put him in the position to have to scold them time and time again by violating procedure and rules.Strongweasel97 said:100 percent nailed it. It's all bluster if you're not going to do something about it.YellAg2004 said:
I know multiple lawyers on here have cringed at how...cavalier...Binger has been with regards to known 3rd rails of legal practice, but at the same time, other than getting a tongue lashing, nothing happens.
The 5th amendment violation yesterday should have ended it.
I don't care who's on trial and whether I believe they're innocent or guilty. That is sacred cow territory and every US citizen should realize it's the only thing between them and unlawful prosecution, especially when the state plays with the cards stacked in their favor from the jump.
He's a defense expert witness.The Fife said:
This guy is boring. Whose side even called him?
Agree fully. Should have led with that. And then work back.AgBQ-00 said:
I am hoping we get a continuous play through. I think it would be much more powerful to have the jury realize it was a matter of less than 3 minutes
Felt the same way. Rekeita feed all agree with that too.powerbelly said:
I wish they prepared this in a more fluid way. It is hard to follow.
this is why i've enjoyed the texas RRC going to zoom only hearings, because when i'm giving expert testimony it lets me drive the presentation of my own exhibits. of course it bites back a bit when i forget that the court reporter can't accurately record the location of my cursor when discussing exhibit details.mkorzo said:
Old dudes and computer troubles, name a more iconic duo.