The Defense Perspective
"we would also want to criminalize the failure of a habeas/defense attorney to turn over any INCULPATORY evidence at that stage"
Is that REALLY a prosecutor arguing that defense attorneys should be jailed for failing to get themselves disbarred by flagrantly violating attorney/client privilege?
Yes, I believe it really is.
During voir dire - question the juror about whether - As a juror, the jury instructions the judge gives you provides that it is your job to determine if the prosecutor has presented sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, can you follow those instructions? Do you agree that if there is NOT sufficient evidence presented to you to convict the defendant, that it is not proper for you to go on a mission or quest for truth instead of basing your decision on the evidence? Shouldn't your judgment be based on the evidence presented to you and not speculation and guesses?
During closing: The jury instructions provide it is your job to determine if the government has presented sufficient evidence to you beyond a reasonable doubt, no where does it say you are to send messages to the community or to go on quests or missions for truth. You are to base you decision on reason and fact and not let sympathy or sentiment or emotions invade your judgment. Emotions do not help you think more clearly. Prosecutor's want you to get angry --- or to get mad --- is that goign to help you make a logical, intelligent, rational decision?
Glen:
Focusing a jury on the burden of proof is definitely the answer to the problem posed by the "truth seekers." Starting at jury selection and working the idea through closing as always been our best way to compel the jury to follow the law, despite their inquisitive human nature. Thanks for stopping by and leaving a comment.
Commenting by HaloScan
