arrogant, or a nasty combination of the above.
Ignore everything else(if you can) and reflect on this: Not a lawyer, but I had some law/LE classes back in my undistinguished college career; sometimes had people from the DAs office, sometimes other attorneys, and among the things I remember are
You never ask a witness a question if you don't know what the answer will be,
and(big one)
You NEVER piss off the judge.
And the prosecutors have done both. Multiple times. The gentleman over here has some video collected and commentary from his own legal background, and it's much better to let him go over it.
I'll say this: the saying I've heard is that when someone says "With all due respect" they're telling you they don't have any for you; when the prosecutor uses that phrase to start to tell the judge "You should be quiet and let me do this", you can just about see him close to saying "You'd better sit down and shut up, pissant, because I've had it with you."
I don't know if Binger has such arrogance that he's managed to get away with this crap before and thought he could do it again(after the previous demonstrations he can't, he should've known better) or he's actually stupid. When you've pushed the judge so far he's considered a mistrial with prejudice, which means your case is gone forever, if you've got three brain cells to rub together you should realize it's time to start shutting up.
8 comments:
Not being a lawyer, my 37 cents is that Binger is hoping the fedgov will continue where he stopped, as he was essentially working for them anyway.
My working hypothesis has been the prosecution is aiming for a mistrial. Now, to do so is to tread ever so carefully for the risks are great. Still, I have seen nothing to dissuade me from thinking that. I have watched this trial live stream since the 2nd day.
Both are possible. Thing is the prosecutors would have to be willing to poison their reputations and records to do it.
Which, be it noted, they're doing a fine job of.
I'm betting gross Incompetence. The prosecutor, like many professional politicians has no actual skills or accomplishments and is in so far over his head he's clueless. VAST numbers of public servants have ZERO skills other than the ability to bullshit and when they actually have to perform fall flat on their face. And yes...he probably knows that the criminals at the Just Us Department are planning on swooping in and crucifying Rittenhouse when this circus wraps up.
It has been widely speculated that the prosecutor is in fact hoping for a mistrial, which would not go on his record as a not guilty verdict. I don't think they considered the possibility of a mistrial with prejudice. That is what the defense has asked for, and the judge is considering. That would be good, in that Kyle could never be tried on those charges again, but it would be bad, because it is not a Not Guilty verdict, and I can see all kinds of media bullshit games being played over that. Fucking commie fucking bastards.
I think that the prosecutors don't have to worry about reputations or records. They are civil servants, government employees and really can't be fired. I never thought of the planned mistrial, but it gets the county/state off the hook with everyone and places it all on the judge, thus giving the Federal government the window to make the case a Federal crime - weapons charge of some kind.
They're lawyers, the6y do have to worry about a judge recommending them being disbarred for their conduct.
There was the same sort of prosecutorial incompetence in the Zimmerman trial. The prosecutors actually put on a witness that testified that Martin called her and along with a bunch of BS told her that:
1) Martin had walked out of Zimmerman's sight.
2) He was safe in the back yard of his temporary home.
3) He was going to go back and beat on Zimmerman.
There are serious doubts about the credibility of this witness, but presumably the prosecution believed her - or should have been disbarred. Its an ethical violation to call a witness to the stand if you think they'll lie, as well as an obvious contradiction of the prosecutor's duty to bring out the truth. But these three facts match the transcripts of Zimmerman's cell phone conversation with the dispatcher, in light of the location of Zimmerman's car, the location where Martin was shot, and the shortest path from the convenience store back to Martin's home. Even without this witness it was pretty clear that Martin turned and walked towards his home and out of Zimmerman's sight, Zimmerman was unsuccessful in following and stopped walking about where the fight happened a few minutes later (a pudgy 5'6" man is not going to catch up to a 5'11" high school football player unless the kid slows down or doubles back!), and the only way they could have been in a fight was if Martin doubled back.
But the prosecutors had their heads so far up their colons that they didn't see this as the proof of self-defense that it was. It's the same here - the prosecutions entire case requires utter blindness to self-defense. IMHO, that's an incompetent lawyer, an incompetent prosecutor, and a person that should never be in _any_ position of power.
Post a Comment