Rekieta is out, Joe at Good Lawgic and Branca are out at least for the morning. Will Alex take the stand and attempt to testify but take the 5th when asked on cross by the state about the financial crimes? Judge ducked addressing a limiting order prohibiting the state from asking about the financial stuff yesterday, preferring to wait and see how the questioning progressed.

Everytime the judge has done that in the past he has always allowed whatever the state wanted to throw into the record, extending the trial's length by two weeks in the process.

So this is a trial strategy question for the defense. Play it safe and keep Alex off of the stand? Or allow him to basically say, "Yes, I am a complete POS of a human being and stole from my friends, my brother, my partners but I am not a killer."



Legal Vices is filling in for Joe this morning

Sounds like there are conflicting reports out there about whether AM will testify.

Quote:

---

"Yes, I am a complete POS of a human being and stole from my friends, my brother, my partners but I am not a killer."

---

This could backfire, as a conviction in this trial will be viewed by many in that state as a "lifetime achievement" award of sorts. He's a very unlikable, unpopular human and it wouldn't surprise me if at least a couple people on that jury are inclined to convict on otherwise minimal evidence just because they think he deserves to be in prison.

No, but he should.
That guy is a sociopath.
Let him entertain us before he goes away for life.

Quote:

---

This could backfire, as a conviction in this trial will be viewed by many in that state as a "lifetime achievement" award of sorts. He's a very unlikable, unpopular human and it wouldn't surprise me if at least a couple people on that jury are inclined to convict on otherwise minimal evidence just because they think he deserves to be in prison.

---

But that's the thing. Even the people he swindled loved the guy and many still do. He's described as a people person who is very charismatic and likeable in person and he was supposedly great as an attorney in front of juries. He is a scummy guy but does not come off as a scummy guy by most reports. All the defense needs is one juror to have doubts to hang this jury.

Maybe defense switches strategy and puts AM's brothers on the stand?

TxTarpon said:

---

No, but he should.
That guy is a sociopath.
Let him entertain us before he goes away for life.

---

Sociopaths are super common, they make up 4-5% of the population. Most don't spend a lifetime committing felonies, and certainly don't murder their families. There's a lot more going on there than psychopathy.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

This could backfire, as a conviction in this trial will be viewed by many in that state as a "lifetime achievement" award of sorts. He's a very unlikable, unpopular human and it wouldn't surprise me if at least a couple people on that jury are inclined to convict on otherwise minimal evidence just because they think he deserves to be in prison.

---

But that's the thing. Even the people he swindled loved the guy and many still do. He's described as a people person who is very charismatic and likeable in person and he was supposedly great as an attorney in front of juries. He is a scummy guy but does not come off as a scummy guy by most reports. All the defense needs is one juror to have doubts to hang this jury.

Maybe defense switches strategy and puts AM's brothers on the stand?

---

I don't mean people who know him, I mean the populace in general. I have family in that state and he's widely viewed by average Joes as a soulless swindling *******. A lot of it has to do with his family being involved in shady dealings for several generations now. He's not even the worst Murdaugh in the lifetimes of many citizens today, at least not before he murdered his family.

Going for the colloquy now. He's been sworn for the judge to advise him of his rights to testify in his own behalf and his rights not to testify under the 5th.

Can't see him going through with it, especially with no limiting order in place. Just allowing the prosecutor to ask the questions (whether or not judge ultimately sustains objections) is not going to be a good look because AM either takes the 5th or his defense team makes a bunch of objections and jury is potentially dismissed for argument, and either of those responses will not be looked upon favorably by layperson jurors. Not sure of the legal background or familiarity with the intricacies of legal proceedings of the jurors, but assuming they have limited understanding, they will look at AM refusing to answer questions or AMs defense team having a fit over questions as signs of "something big" being kept from them.

I am hoping he does though as it will make for fascinating viewing, but surely he and his team understand that it is strategically a terrible idea (unless by some miracle he has magic testimony that explains things like his voice being on Snapchat video and he is the only avenue for them to get that testimony in the record).

That's the problem, judge, you ruled that the financial crimes were relevant as to motive, which is not an element of first degree murder. That's the appellate issue. Was that character evidence truly relevant.

He's going to testify.

Cross, when they get to it, will take days.

Wow, Nolan Tutin is being recalled!

ETA: This is the brother of the other Tuten who testified. Friend of Paul's.

Maybe the strategy now is to stretch this thing out long enough and hope enough jurors catch the Covid so a they can get a mistrial?

unmade bed said:

---

Maybe the strategy now is to stretch this thing out long enough and hope enough jurors catch the Covid so a they can get a mistrial?

---

Good point. But that is the state's call. They can dial it back on cross and stop from drawing this out for that much longer. Will play into their strategy too.

So the state's story about Paul being lured down to Moselle by Alex was not true. Paul was always planning on beng there that day to plow under the sunflower field and then replant it.

Is SLED running the feeds? They are very glitchy this morning.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

TxTarpon said:

---

No, but he should.
That guy is a sociopath.
Let him entertain us before he goes away for life.

---

Sociopaths are super common, they make up 4-5% of the population. Most don't spend a lifetime committing felonies, and certainly don't murder their families. There's a lot more going on there than psychopathy.

---

They are great in transactional sales roles.
They are also great at running schemes and criminal organizations.
Carmine "The Snake" Persico is a great example.

Taking a break? What's up?

aggiehawg said:

---

So the state's story about Paul being lured down to Moselle by Alex was not true. Paul was always planning on beng there that day to plow under the sunflower field and then replant it.

---

If Tuten was at the property that evening, would the murders have occurred? Would he have also been killed? Man...

Alex needs a poop break before he takes the stand. I can only imagine he would.

ETA: Or maybe he needs to throw up?

We are back. Popcorn time!

So, can he selectively plead the 5th?
Ie answer some question and plead the 5th on others.

Hole E Chit

ItsA&InotA&M said:

---

So, can he selectively plead the 5th?
Ie answer some question and plead the 5th on others.

---

He can try it. What is the judge going to do? Put him in jail? He's already in custody.

Aaaaaaaannnnndddd away we go.

Griffin is handling the direct. Expected Harpootlian.

He admits he lied about being at the kennels.

Why did he lie? His addiction caused him to become paranoid.

"I would never intentionally do anything to hurt either one of them."

He's toast. This is not a good look for him. "I lied because I was paranoid." Says he was thinking people were following him around.

Did you shoot them because you were paranoid?

aggiehawg said:

---

Why did he lie? His addiction caused him to become paranoid.

---

Went with the "my drug addiction made me do things that I would otherwise never do" defense, eh??

Bold bold strategy

lunchbox said:

---

"I would never intentionally do anything to hurt either one of them."

---

Caught that too. Third party testimony coming?

Not a Bot said:

---

He's toast. This is not a good look for him. "I lied because I was paranoid." Says he was thinking people were following him around.

---

He also mentioned he has a distrust SLED agents.

Define intentionally.

Gosney is on Legal Vices stream. Really want to hear his thoughts on this compared to Baker.