The Charlie Kirk Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rock
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 5K
  • Views: 136K
  • Politics 
ZenMode said:
Uh Huh Yes GIF

Translation: the defense attorney found some yahoo, paid him/her lots of money to come to that conclusion.
Click to expand...
Certainly a possibility. But as a defense lawyer I can also say that that would be an incredibly stupid move, as it would destroy any credibility you have, which in turn would torpedo your defense (unless there’s something else out there that can give you a strong defense). So if that’s the case, this guy has a terrible lawyer. As a lawyer, you’re going to be very careful in selecting your experts (you want someone with credibility) and very careful in presenting their findings (you want those to be credible).
 
Icky Mettle said:
Certainly a possibility. But as a defense lawyer I can also say that that would be an incredibly stupid move, as it would destroy any credibility you have, which in turn would torpedo your defense (unless there’s something else out there that can give you a strong defense). So if that’s the case, this guy has a terrible lawyer. As a lawyer, you’re going to be very careful in selecting your experts (you want someone with credibility) and very careful in presenting their findings (you want those to be credible).
Click to expand...
What I think you're missing here is that sometimes your choice is between no defense and a bonkers defense; between no rebuttal expert and one that may not be credible.
 
rodoheel said:
What I think you're missing here is that sometimes your choice is between no defense and a bonkers defense; between no rebuttal expert and one that may not be credible.
Click to expand...
This was my thought. What do you have to lose? The evidence is overwhelming. This is a legal Hail Mary to keep your client out of prison.

@Icky Mettle
 
rodoheel said:
What I think you're missing here is that sometimes your choice is between no defense and a bonkers defense; between no rebuttal expert and one that may not be credible.
Click to expand...
I’ve tried some cases with terrible facts from a defense standpoint and had to grasp at straws to present a fairly unbelievable defense in way that could create reasonable doubt. But I can’t imagine presenting some quack’s “expert” opinion, particularly this early in the process when you need to maintain credibility with opposing counsel. And I think one of the most hurtful things you can do to your defense is to put up a witness who will not come across as credible.
 
Icky Mettle said:
I’ve tried some cases with terrible facts from a defense standpoint and had to grasp at straws to present a fairly unbelievable defense in way that could create reasonable doubt. But I can’t imagine presenting some quack’s “expert” opinion, particularly this early in the process when you need to maintain credibility with opposing counsel. And I think one of the most hurtful things you can do to your defense is to put up a witness who will not come across as credible.
Click to expand...
I hear you, but "quack" is subjective. I don't think anyone is claiming that the defense just pulled some homeless guy off the street and framed him as a ballistics expert. I think people are just saying that one should not simply accept the ballistics opinion of the defense expert at face value, which I'm sure you would agree with.
 
rodoheel said:
I hear you, but "quack" is subjective. I don't think anyone is claiming that the defense just pulled some homeless guy off the street and framed him as a ballistics expert. I think people are just saying that one should not simply accept the ballistics opinion of the defense expert at face value, which I'm sure you would agree with.
Click to expand...
Oh sure. I was more responding to the assertion in Zen’s post that they found some “yahoo.”
 
Didn't Robinson confess to doing it, though? His dad thought it was him and asked him, and he said he did it. Of course, people have confessed to doing things that they really didn't.
 
Icky Mettle said:
Oh sure. I was more responding to the assertion in Zen’s post that they found some “yahoo.”
Click to expand...
Time will tell, but I don't believe for a second that it was just discovered that the round didn't come from the gun used by Tyler Robsinson.

My guess is the defense lawyer reached out to several "experts" until he found one that told him what he wanted to hear.
 
ZenMode said:
Time will tell, but I don't believe for a second that it was just discovered that the round didn't come from the gun used by Tyler Robsinson.

My guess is the defense lawyer reached out to several "experts" until he found one that told him what he wanted to hear.
Click to expand...
Charlie Day Ok GIF
 
ZenMode said:
Time will tell, but I don't believe for a second that it was just discovered that the round didn't come from the gun used by Tyler Robsinson.

My guess is the defense lawyer reached out to several "experts" until he found one that told him what he wanted to hear.
Click to expand...
Looks like the analysis they’re pointing to was from ATF, not a hired expert.
 
Last edited:
ZenMode said:
Time will tell, but I don't believe for a second that it was just discovered that the round didn't come from the gun used by Tyler Robsinson.

My guess is the defense lawyer reached out to several "experts" until he found one that told him what he wanted to hear.
Click to expand...
I believe he has appointed counsel, which means the defense has to get court approval to cover the funds for an expert. Highly unlikely that he court allowed for funds for multiple experts to look into the same thing. So they probably just went to one expert. Not saying that expert’s opinion is correct, but I don’t think it all happened in the manner that you’re saying it did.
 
Icky Mettle said:
I believe he has appointed counsel, which means the defense has to get court approval to cover the funds for an expert. Highly unlikely that he court allowed for funds for multiple experts to look into the same thing. So they probably just went to one expert. Not saying that expert’s opinion is correct, but I don’t think it all happened in the manner that you’re saying it did.
Click to expand...
Well, maybe the defense is just making things up to delay...

The defense stated that they believe that the ATF reports included in the discovery show “that the ATF was unable to identify the bullet recovered at autopsy to the rifle allegedly tied to Mr. Robinson,” which could be essential to which witnesses they call. However, they also state they have not yet received these case files.

In the motion, the defense also states that they’ve received approximately 20,000 files with over 700 hours of video files and 31 hours of audio files. Additionally, they state they received another 600,000 files on March 12, which is expected to take sixty days to review. After review, the defense will need to determine if additional time is necessary for further review.
 
Icky Mettle said:
Certainly a possibility. But as a defense lawyer I can also say that that would be an incredibly stupid move, as it would destroy any credibility you have, which in turn would torpedo your defense (unless there’s something else out there that can give you a strong defense). So if that’s the case, this guy has a terrible lawyer. As a lawyer, you’re going to be very careful in selecting your experts (you want someone with credibility) and very careful in presenting their findings (you want those to be credible).
Click to expand...
I mean, it was probably still worth a desperation 3 though, no? Without it, this kid is cooked.
 
ZenMode said:
Well, maybe the defense is just making things up to delay...

The defense stated that they believe that the ATF reports included in the discovery show “that the ATF was unable to identify the bullet recovered at autopsy to the rifle allegedly tied to Mr. Robinson,” which could be essential to which witnesses they call. However, they also state they have not yet received these case files.

In the motion, the defense also states that they’ve received approximately 20,000 files with over 700 hours of video files and 31 hours of audio files. Additionally, they state they received another 600,000 files on March 12, which is expected to take sixty days to review. After review, the defense will need to determine if additional time is necessary for further review.
Click to expand...
This is veering a little off topic from the point I was making in response to this comment:
“Translation: the defense attorney found some yahoo and paid him/her lots of money to come to that conclusion.”

But it appears my original point regarding defense strategy is somewhat moot. Since his lawyers are appointed, they are not paying any experts lots of money. It also appears they are not relying on an expert here at the moment, as they seem to claim that the ATF ballistics analyst’s conclusions are exculpatory (which may or may not be the case). In any even, your “translation” is off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top