|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 06:39 PM EDT |
It'll be presented in very dry, lawyer-to-lawyer speak, with all of the emotion
wrung out; like dry print toner on a hot day.
What would be fascinating is the inside scoop, where he "What! You mean
THAT goof was on the JURY!?" and she "Huh? What's wrong?" and he
rapid-fire like he's got 40 seconds left in closing arguments and she grabs
phone and fires off a text with the "you're not going to freaking BELIEVE
this" emoticon in it.
What? Your phone doesn't have one of those? Mine either. But I'd have more use
for that than a Swiss Railroad Clockface.
cpeterson[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 12:48 PM EDT |
It goes directly to _timing_, when the lawyer first became aware of the fact
that Hogan had been involved in the prior case. If they didn't even know each
other 20 years ago, there would have been no reason for the case to have been
discussed by them in the intervening years. The first time the subject would
have even been brought up would have been _after_ Hogan started spouting off,
not before the trial began, during the voir dire process.
This would indicate that Hogan's contention that they KNEW beforehand but waited
is absolutely baseless.
Hogan: "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with facts."[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
