OK, Honeyb, we have demonstrated to you what Mark Geragos could have done, but didn\'t. We\'ve also showed you what he did that he shouldn\'t have done. A good lawyer does not do what he shouldn\'t have done and leave undone what what he should done.
Remember, we\'re still not talking about Peterson\'s guilt or innocence. For the purpose of this exercise, let me give it to you that he killed his wife resultling also in the destruction of her fetus. Now, that is out of the way.
Even the prosecutor will be the first to tell you that the defence did a bum job because the defence missed many opportunites to challenge or counter. The prosecutor knows he got a free ride.
Legally speaking, there is no presidence for death sentence ruling where the verdict is resultant of concivtion by circumstantial evidence. It has never happened. Even in the days of open season on blacks, the convict had to be placed on the crime scene by an eye witness, crime weapon, or DNA. If they have to, they would hire a false witness, plant evidence, or force a confession. They need all this testimony, albeit false, to convict.
A good layer does not promise the jury what he can\'t deliver.
A good defence attorney appeal any motion inimical to his case to a higher court, if necessary.
A good lawyer would fight for the inadmisibilty of most of the prosecutor\'s evidence.
A good layer would fight to suppress evidence not contributing to the issue at hand, in this case, murder. An example would be the display of a blown up image of the expelled fetus. Taht was purely theatrical, designed to garner sympathy and inflate passion. No bearing in the case.
Let\'s say you are a lawyer, defending Peterson. You don\'t stand up in court and say, \"your honor I think my cliant is guilty.\" Your loyalty is to your client, no matter what. Even when you are certain that your cliant did the deed, and you know he has no chance because witness say he had told them of his plan to kill his wife. Another witness saw the two of then at the crime scene, quarrelling and fighting. Another saw him actually dealing the death blows. Then the hunting knife which was used to hack her to peices was found in his gym bag, blood and flesh and all. She had a handful of his hair in her hand. I\'m attempting to state the worst case scenario here. And you, his sounsel, know that his goose is cooked.
As a good attorney, you would not stand in front of the court and say he did not kill her. You simply change tactics. That is what you are paid for, defend your client. You will try to employ one of various defences. Insanity is one. Being drunk is another form of temporary insanity. Accident is another defence. Mental health, medication, even some prescription pain killers have been known to blame. After you pull all the stops and still lose, then we can say good job, you did your best. We are saying Mark Garegos did not do his best.
Now, let\'s talk money. Believe it or not, money talks. Remember that F L Bailey was OJ\'s first attorney. When he was fired, he didn\'t give back the money already paid him by OJ. OJ forgot about that money and hired Mr Cochran, another high priced, but more brilland, lawyer. Do you think Scott could have afforded that? OJ did not buy justice; he could afford to find somebody else who could fight for him. If OJ couldn\'t have afforded JC, he would have been stock with FLB, they wouldn\'t find Dr L and he would have been DEAD.
Besides the amount spent on the two lawyers, OJ could afford the mountain of money it took to retest and double-check state\'s tests. In some cases, they conducted their tests, also. This put the prosecution incheck so they don\'t falsify reports, results, and evidence. It took a lot of money to hire Private Eyes who scoured the face of the earth, looking for evidence to exonerate OJ. They excavated the tape that showed Mark Farhman used the word, Nigger. That tape discredited Mark, the honest, conscientious police officer.
How did you think they found out about OJ\'s blood sample being driven around in a police cruiser instesd of transporting it to the lab? It cost money to find out that some of the blood was missing and that the missing blood accounted for the swipes of blood found in OJ\'s SUV. Most of all, it cost money, lots of it to engage the services of Dr Lee, one of, if not, the best forensic experts in the world. By showing that the blood on OJs sox was dabbed on not splashed, he destroyed the prosecution case.
Having planted all this suspicion, the door was opened in the jury\'s mind to accept the glove chant, \"If it doesn\'t fit, you must acquit.\" The whole case, although weak by now, was rested on the glove. Did you see how many times motions were taken to higher courts and supreme court. Go ask how expensive it is to go back and forth between courts. Paterson didn\'t have that kind of money so he went in naked. Remember, momey is what money can buy.
Another this a good defence attorney does is take the case out of the jury\'s hand. make them see what the law gives then right to do and what they cannot do. The glove chant provided that. A good lawyer doesn\'t just tell the jury what the law says about an issue, they will soon forget. In OJ\'s trial, JC used videos to show the jury what he they need to know. They can\'t forget that. All this costs MONEY.
All the defence needs if to introduce doubt in the mind of just one juror.
