How prosecutors blow cases
Government incompetence FTW
(Christopher Darden during the OJ Simpson trial, via here)
Gell-Mann amnesia is when you see a news article about something you are familiar with and realize how wrong the article is.
You then see an unrelated news story and believe it.
Being a prosecutor is a daily red pill about the legal Gell-Mann amnesia going on.
Two of the best examples of people coming up with excuses for why obvious guilty verdicts turned out not guilty that have NOTHING TO DO with ANYTHING are the OJ Simpson trial and George Zimmerman trial.
I have attended multiple trial advocacy trainings. At EVERY SINGLE ONE, the example of the WORST POSSIBLE OPENING STATEMENT is Christopher Darden’s OJ Simpson trial:
Chris Darden spent almost AN HOUR praising OJ Simpson and beating around the bush before getting to the fact that OJ MURDERED TWO PEOPLE IN COLD BLOOD NEAR HIS RESIDENCE AND THERE WAS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE EVERYWHERE.
You NEVER start an opening statement PRAISING the defendant. You don’t show how great and famous someone is; you go AFTER THEM. You show them for the MONSTER they are for WHAT THEY DID.
I was still young when this trial happened, and I have not rewatched all of it…
But if you are that dumb to start, was any incompetence after a surprise?
I did not pay too much attention during the George Zimmerman trial, but I should have.
Prosecutors have latitude and discretion - should we charge this case, what evidence (that we have already disclosed) should we use at trial? A big one is defendant’s statement.
Depending on what he or she said, the statement might be beneficial for the Defendant’s case. I have an obligation to turn over the statement, but I don’t have to use it in trial when trying to convict him or her.
If I don’t use it and it is good for defendant, then defendant has to decide:
Do I testify or not?
Most defendants have prior convictions, some that can be used against them if they testify. Given most are lying (almost everyone is guilty, the bigger question is whether they should be charged at all or if that charge is appropriate), do you want your client to get up on the stand and have a prepared prosecutor grill them, wait for a slip, then pounce?
In the George Zimmerman case, he gave a statement to police right after the incident. Originally, Zimmerman was not charged. However, once activists got involved, a special prosecutor was appointed.
This special prosecutor was special in more than one way because they let Zimmerman’s statement in for their case WITHOUT having the ability to cross him
…Which is an interesting move given after the fact THE PROSECUTORS SAID THEIR STRATEGY WAS TO GET ZIMMERMAN ON THE STAND.
HOW WAS THAT SUPPOSED TO WORK?!?
Defense IMMEDIATELY rested after prosecution’s case. What was the point? State gave the case away, and the jury found the defendant not guilty.
Most trials are cut and dry, with state REALLY having to screw up to lose.
It happens…and the news media is too incompetent to explain why.
Was RACE why OJ was acquitted? Probably not. Government flubbed the whole time, hard to try a case that bad.
Were those Florida jurors too STUPID to see a murder? Probably not. State had a solid case but gave the game away at the end.
Remember this the next time you hear the media BREAKING DOWN the latest legal case…or anything they say about anything.
NAMASTE,
KONG