The Good Wife (10 November)
David / Amicus
Though he did a great job we find out that the defense attorney was not
a "real" attorney.
So? Why should that make any difference? He did the job competently.
Jeff Gersten
Yes, I noticed that, too.
>Though he did a great job we find out that the
>defense attorney was not a "real" attorney.
>So? Why should that make any difference? He
>did the job competently.
Good question.
Also, she made him stop, They implied that the case then went straight
to the jury. What about closing arguments? And they did their clients a
disservice by not recalling the plaintiff to the stand and asking her
about her contact with the security company owner.
Porter Smith
@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net:
Because practicing law withouta license is a crime and if she knowingly
went along she would be guilty. By sending the case to the jury she can
claim she didn't know until it was too late
Jeff Gersten
>>First episode without Noth.
They implied that the case would now go to the jury. But, that is still
far off. Both sides still have to make a closing argument. The judge
still has to instruct them. How long can she delay her investigator
coming back?
And who is going to make the closing argument for the defense? Is she
prepared to? If she does would the jury wonder why the attorney they
have been listening to all along is not making that summation?
And, when it comes right down to it, she knew. She just had not seen the
report. But, she knew!
Hunter
Ami...@webtv.net says...
You can't pass yourself off as an expert in the law. Simple as that.
You have to have standards. Now you can have anyone represent you I
THINK, I have to check that, but he cannot call him/herself a lawyer
unless he passes state requirements.
He misrepresented himself to the court and his clients.s
--
----->Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
David Johnston
Gersten) wrote:
>my_por...@yahoo.com (Porter�Smith) wrote:
>
>Ami...@webtv.net (David / Amicus) wrote in news:11947-4AFA5AAF-4791
>@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net:
>
>>>First episode without Noth.
>
>>>Though he did a great job we find out that
>>>the defense attorney was not a "real"
>>>attorney.
>
>>>So? Why should that make any difference?
>>>He did the job competently.
>
>>Because practicing law withouta license is a
>>crime and if she knowingly went along she >would be guilty. By sending
>the case to the
>>jury she can claim she didn't know until it was
>>too late
>
>They implied that the case would now go to the jury. But, that is still
>far off. Both sides still have to make a closing argument. The judge
>still has to instruct them. How long can she delay her investigator
>coming back?
It might be a moot point. After all, should the judge declare a
mistrial, it is unlikely that the fraudsters would take the chance of
launching a second lawsuit. The evidence of their collaboration is
not going to magically disappear.
Hunter
JeffG...@webtv.net says...
> my_por...@yahoo.com (Porter Smith) wrote:
>
> Ami...@webtv.net (David / Amicus) wrote in news:11947-4AFA5AAF-4791
> @storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net:
>
> >>First episode without Noth.
>
> >>Though he did a great job we find out that
> >>the defense attorney was not a "real"
> >>attorney.
>
> >>So? Why should that make any difference?
> >>He did the job competently.
>
> >Because practicing law withouta license is a
> >crime and if she knowingly went along she >would be guilty. By sending
> the case to the
> >jury she can claim she didn't know until it was
> >too late
>
> They implied that the case would now go to the jury. But, that is still
> far off. Both sides still have to make a closing argument. The judge
> still has to instruct them. How long can she delay her investigator
> coming back?
I think it is a figure of speech. I don't think she will literally
walk around the block but stay away until the jury is deliberating.
>
> And who is going to make the closing argument for the defense? Is she
> prepared to? If she does would the jury wonder why the attorney they
> have been listening to all along is not making that summation?
No, in trials with multiple lawyers it is not unusual for one lawyer
to handle one aspect of the case and the other another
>
> And, when it comes right down to it, she knew. She just had not seen the
> report. But, she knew!
Sure, but she will keep it to her self and she has plausible
deniability. Her investigator could finagle the truth by saying that
she did not officially know until after she was told specifically and
explicitly that he wasn't a lawyer and her investigator can strictly
say they didn't know until she was told over the phone.
Hunter
JeffG...@webtv.net says...
He was breaking the law. Everything stops. Hell, if anyone finds out
she can loose her license.
mavman
> In article <17675-4AFAA1A...@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net>,
> JeffGers...@webtv.net says...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sadly, this was covered much better in an old movie starring Jeff
Daniels and Michael Richards. That's right, Kramer.