We have completed the opening statements. While I deviated a bit in presentation, here is the written opening statement.
Now back to the action . . .
61 thoughts on “PORTEOUS TRIAL — OPENING STATEMENT”
Comments are closed.
We have completed the opening statements. While I deviated a bit in presentation, here is the written opening statement.
Now back to the action . . .
Comments are closed.
Blouise,
You don’t need a talent for writing fiction. All you need is the facts, M’am, the facts! Nonfiction may be the way to go.
FFLEO,
You might be gone by now but I was wondering … how did the streaming go?
Dang, I was hoping to see Dog the Bounty Hunter and his minions take the stand…..
AY,
Someone said they were backing off of the bail-bond thing
SO how did it come to light that Judge was receiving kick backs? And just because the Fed’s have granted Immunity does not mean that the state cannot still pursue conspiracy to commit bribery of an elected official or at least attempted bribery, whether its a state offense or not? Or did the State of Louisiana agree not to prosecute in toto?
“The four articles approved by the House on Thursday accuse Porteous of taking money, expensive meals and other gifts from lawyers and a bail bond company with business before him and of making false statements in a personal bankruptcy filing.”
Expensive meals, Blimpee and his hamburger….now how is that?
Other gifts? Whats that?
How did a bail bonds man/person/woman bribe the judge? Did they have an issue and the Judge held it in abeyance and did not do a forfeiture?
Making false statements? What is the nature of this and has the DOJ acted?
Amato and Creeley … I can’t wait to meet Gardner … damn, I wish I could write fiction!
Buddha,
You pegged Creely. It was evident that he was NOT a happy camper.
Buddha,
There were a few times when it looked–to me–as if Amato was ready to pass out.
Blouise,
Lawyers or not, remember that we as jurors count and we as voters count.
I am not a lawyer, as you all know, and so my opinion shouldn’t count for much but … the Prof’s cross of Mole was so damn pretty! It was like watching an artist take a blank canvas and create a beautiful painting.
When Mole said, ” … maybe I was naive …”, I smiled and said to myself, “Watch for it ’cause here it comes!” Sure enough, 1, 2, 3, 4 bold brush strokes and the painting was done!
Buddha,
I thought Attorney Mole was a much better witness than the other 2 ex-lawyers…
Mole definably had a repressed fidgeting problem. Sometimes his left hand has a life of its own. He’s resorted to crossing his arms on the table again and then gripping the podium when the questions in earnest started about the retainer agreement.
I’d play poker with him.
Elaine,
No nodding. Some interesting smirking from the prosecution’s bench. The bitterness of Creely fairly dripped off his agitated movement. He was a guy clearly disgusted he was there at all much less compelled to testify. Mole was using very defensive and self-conscious body language when first on the stand (arms crossed, fidgeting with his mustache) that he stopped when he realized he was doing it with a standard speaker’s ploy of grasping the podium (and then resting one hand in his lap) as a control mechanism.
Bits and things.
Blouise,
Glad I could provide you with a laugh. Were you picturing a wild-eyed Jack Nicholson in your mind?
*****
Buddha,
Go ooooonnnn! Have you caught anyone nodding off yet?
There’s been some interesting body language going on today.
Elaine,
I hope you’re referring to the Senators because I laughed long and loud
They’re b-a-a-a-a-c-k!
FFLEO,
The admonishment certainly influenced the brevity, but the response with a such a concise re-cross? A one question and out after both the prosecution’s lengthy belaboring of points made clear in previous testimony and then the Senators liking to hear the sound of their own voices so much (they could have let McCaskill’s ‘time is short’ message stand on its own)?
I’m sorry, but that just made the lil’ tactical lawyer living in my head grin.
It was good verbal kung fu. Subtle and effective.
“The punchline is that the re-cross did take considerably less time than the objections and arguments about limiting re-cross”
However, Buddha, I think the brevity of re-cross was the direct result of the admonition to “move along”. Both sides need to cease with the repetition.
There was an abundance of repetitiousness, especially considering that—as Tom stated above—Article 1 seems to be very weak.