Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (3 Viewers)

[ATC1]

Body language expert.

Angry

Prediction #1: 75%+ of posters in this thread will dismiss the expert because it conflicts with their view.

Prediction #2: If Zimmerman is found not guilty, he will kill again.

This post shows your bias more than any other. That woman actually helps the defense, but you are so blinded that all you latched on to was that she said he was angry.

Any link with a hard copy? Link not working for me for some reason.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Body language expert.

Angry

Prediction #1: 75%+ of posters in this thread will dismiss the expert because it conflicts with their view.

Prediction #2: If Zimmerman is found not guilty, he will kill again.

Watched your link.. What was in there that anyone here should disagree with, or that suggests Zimmerman will kill again? Please tell me you're not finding those conclusions based on that link.. If so, you're a space cadet..She basically says he shows human characteristics, anger, pain.. etc.. That's all she really said.. You seem to think that bolsters your opinion, and even means he'll kill again.. I think you've lost your marbles..

Cant imagine why he would be angry. Being held against his will, accused of murder, everyone in the country hates him, will not be able to live in this country with any sort of peace for a very very long time if found innocent etc etc, he should be jumping for joy.

If I was attacked in the middle of the night by someone I didn't know, and was forced to choose whether to get the hell beat out of me, continue to inccur broken body parts, or use a gun to get him off of me, and that completely took my and my families lives and flushed them down the toilet, I'd be pretty mad.If he is innocent, he has every right to be upset. Is he supposed to be happy about what he and his family are going through?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Body language expert.

Angry

Prediction #1: 75%+ of posters in this thread will dismiss the expert because it conflicts with their view.

Prediction #2: If Zimmerman is found not guilty, he will kill again.

This post shows your bias more than any other. That woman actually helps the defense, but you are so blinded that all you latched on to was that she said he was angry.

The "If zimmerman isn't found guilty, he'll kill again" line is way over the top and in very poor taste. Tex is a complete toolbag..

 

[Da Guru]

Just on CSNBC Nothing will be done until the Federal investigation is complete. They are predicting this will not even go to trial for at least 12-15 months.

Will FBKBNW thread have the staying power?

 

[jonessed]

Body language expert.

Angry

Prediction #1: 75%+ of posters in this thread will dismiss the expert because it conflicts with their view.

Prediction #2: If Zimmerman is found not guilty, he will kill again.

 

[Clifford]

That expert supports my initial bias and I will say that she is completely full of it. Then again, I don't place much stake in her "vocation" and "expertise" regardless of the subject. Sounds like a load of horse #### to me.

 

[identikit]

That expert supports my initial bias and I will say that she is completely full of it. Then again, I don't place much stake in her "vocation" and "expertise" regardless of the subject. Sounds like a load of horse #### to me.

She probably freelances as a life coach,ETA and/or Tarot cards.

 

[kentric]

Body language expert.

Angry

Prediction #1: 75%+ of posters in this thread will dismiss the expert because it conflicts with their view.

Prediction #2: If Zimmerman is found not guilty, he will kill again.

If I posted something as ridiculous as this I'd be too ashamed to show my face here again. Which says alot considering the anonymity of internet sites.

 

[ATC1]

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/evidence-that-trayvon-martin-doubled-back

This goes into Commish's or rez (I forgot) about Matrin doubling back. Not sure if he posted this, but it includes a map.

 

[Clifford]

That expert supports my initial bias and I will say that she is completely full of it. Then again, I don't place much stake in her "vocation" and "expertise" regardless of the subject. Sounds like a load of horse #### to me.

She probably freelances as a life coach,ETA and/or Tarot cards.

I've said it once and I will say it again: modern psychology is ruining this country.

 

[TexanFan02]

Body language expert.

Angry

Prediction #1: 75%+ of posters in this thread will dismiss the expert because it conflicts with their view.

Prediction #2: If Zimmerman is found not guilty, he will kill again.

If I posted something as ridiculous as this I'd be too ashamed to show my face here again. Which says alot considering the anonymity of internet sites.

I'll bump this post for you when he kills again.

 

[Christo]

This whole lie thing is lol on 3 or 4 distinct levels.

I'm waiting for the punch line myself.

There is no situation where an attorney must allow a client to take the stand and lie. If the client wants to testify and the attorney doesn't know that some or all of the testimony is a lie he can't stop the client from testifying. But that's not allowing a client to lie.

You just quoted a rule of conduct that said when the court so orders a lawyer must due exactly that."A lawyer may not offer testimony that the lawyer knows to be false in the form of a narrative unless so ordered by the tribunal."

ETA: I think someone needs more Ethics CLE.

"Unless so ordered by the tribunal." In other words, the lawyer isn't allowing anyone to do anything.I think someone needs more English lessons.

 

[jon_mx]

Body language expert. AngryPrediction #1: 75%+ of posters in this thread will dismiss the expert because it conflicts with their view. Prediction #2: If Zimmerman is found not guilty, he will kill again.

This post shows your bias more than any other. That woman actually helps the defense, but you are so blinded that all you latched on to was that she said he was angry.

In a thread full of terrible posts, that one easily take the prize as the worst. Of course he is pretty much domininating the category.

 

[Road Warriors]

Body language expert. AngryPrediction #1: 75%+ of posters in this thread will dismiss the expert because it conflicts with their view. Prediction #2: If Zimmerman is found not guilty, he will kill again.

This post shows your bias more than any other. That woman actually helps the defense, but you are so blinded that all you latched on to was that she said he was angry.

In a thread full of terrible posts, that one easily take the prize as the worst. Of course he is pretty much domininating the category.

I'd have to disagree... the "Martin deserved it" post has this one beat, in a photo finish. But this is a strong effort from TF02.

 

[dparker713]

This whole lie thing is lol on 3 or 4 distinct levels.

I'm waiting for the punch line myself.

There is no situation where an attorney must allow a client to take the stand and lie. If the client wants to testify and the attorney doesn't know that some or all of the testimony is a lie he can't stop the client from testifying. But that's not allowing a client to lie.

You just quoted a rule of conduct that said when the court so orders a lawyer must due exactly that."A lawyer may not offer testimony that the lawyer knows to be false in the form of a narrative unless so ordered by the tribunal."

ETA: I think someone needs more Ethics CLE.

"Unless so ordered by the tribunal." In other words, the lawyer isn't allowing anyone to do anything.I think someone needs more English lessons.

Took you a day to come up with that? The lawyer is still calling the defendant to the stand.

Care to revise your statement yet that there is never a time when a lawyer will put a client on the stand that they know is going to lie?

 

[Christo]

This whole lie thing is lol on 3 or 4 distinct levels.

I'm waiting for the punch line myself.

There is no situation where an attorney must allow a client to take the stand and lie. If the client wants to testify and the attorney doesn't know that some or all of the testimony is a lie he can't stop the client from testifying. But that's not allowing a client to lie.

You just quoted a rule of conduct that said when the court so orders a lawyer must due exactly that."A lawyer may not offer testimony that the lawyer knows to be false in the form of a narrative unless so ordered by the tribunal."

ETA: I think someone needs more Ethics CLE.

"Unless so ordered by the tribunal." In other words, the lawyer isn't allowing anyone to do anything.I think someone needs more English lessons.

Took you a day to come up with that? The lawyer is still calling the defendant to the stand.

Care to revise your statement yet that there is never a time when a lawyer will put a client on the stand that they know is going to lie?

The lawyer still isn't allowing him to lie, the court is allowing him to lie. So I stand by my statement.

 

[Chaos Commish]

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/evidence-that-trayvon-martin-doubled-backThis goes into Commish's or rez (I forgot) about Matrin doubling back. Not sure if he posted this, but it includes a map.

Thanks, that's the gist but it's weak only using ten time stamped lines from the call. There's much better out there. The one I think is closest is at a site with 30 threads and well over 1200 pages. I don't feel like looking for it, but it's the only one I've seen (and I've seen over a dozen) that insists Zimmerman headed due north from his house and was west of the clubhouse when he made the call. This is the only scenario I can think of that allows George to follow Trayvon any distance from his truck. Other timeline mappers have George east of the clubhouse (where he's always assumed parked) when he starts the call. This allows Trayvon to walk past him (for some reason that's very important to some), but it doesn't allow for George to follow from his truck. That link ignores the issues and just jumps in well after things started.

 

[TexanFan02]

Body language expert.

Angry

Prediction #1: 75%+ of posters in this thread will dismiss the expert because it conflicts with their view.

Prediction #2: If Zimmerman is found not guilty, he will kill again.

This post shows your bias more than any other. That woman actually helps the defense, but you are so blinded that all you latched on to was that she said he was angry.

In a thread full of terrible posts, that one easily take the prize as the worst. Of course he is pretty much domininating the category.

I'd have to disagree... the "Martin deserved it" post has this one beat, in a photo finish. But this is a strong effort from TF02.

There's more than one. And thanks!

 

[dparker713]

This whole lie thing is lol on 3 or 4 distinct levels.

I'm waiting for the punch line myself.

There is no situation where an attorney must allow a client to take the stand and lie. If the client wants to testify and the attorney doesn't know that some or all of the testimony is a lie he can't stop the client from testifying. But that's not allowing a client to lie.

You just quoted a rule of conduct that said when the court so orders a lawyer must due exactly that."A lawyer may not offer testimony that the lawyer knows to be false in the form of a narrative unless so ordered by the tribunal."

ETA: I think someone needs more Ethics CLE.

"Unless so ordered by the tribunal." In other words, the lawyer isn't allowing anyone to do anything.I think someone needs more English lessons.

Took you a day to come up with that? The lawyer is still calling the defendant to the stand.

Care to revise your statement yet that there is never a time when a lawyer will put a client on the stand that they know is going to lie?

The lawyer still isn't allowing him to lie, the court is allowing him to lie. So I stand by my statement.

The lawyer is not without free will. He has options, be they withdrawing or disobeying the court order.Care to comment on other state ethics rules that call for a lawyer in that situation to allow the defendent to proceed in a narrative fashion without a court order?

 

[Christo]

The lawyer is not without free will. He has options, be they withdrawing or disobeying the court order.

Care to comment on other state ethics rules that call for a lawyer in that situation to allow the defendent to proceed in a narrative fashion without a court order?

If it's a narrative, the client is proceeding on his own without his lawyers help.

 

[dparker713]

The lawyer is not without free will. He has options, be they withdrawing or disobeying the court order.

Care to comment on other state ethics rules that call for a lawyer in that situation to allow the defendent to proceed in a narrative fashion without a court order?

If it's a narrative, the client is proceeding on his own without his lawyers help.

I really hope you're being deliberately obtuse. Otherwise, I weep for your clients.

 

[TexanFan02]

The lawyer is not without free will. He has options, be they withdrawing or disobeying the court order.

Care to comment on other state ethics rules that call for a lawyer in that situation to allow the defendent to proceed in a narrative fashion without a court order?

If it's a narrative, the client is proceeding on his own without his lawyers help.

I really hope you're being deliberately obtuse. Otherwise, I weep for your clients.

Among other things. You must be unfamiliar with Christo's schtick.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/evidence-that-trayvon-martin-doubled-backThis goes into Commish's or rez (I forgot) about Matrin doubling back. Not sure if he posted this, but it includes a map.

Thanks, that's the gist but it's weak only using ten time stamped lines from the call. There's much better out there. The one I think is closest is at a site with 30 threads and well over 1200 pages. I don't feel like looking for it, but it's the only one I've seen (and I've seen over a dozen) that insists Zimmerman headed due north from his house and was west of the clubhouse when he made the call. This is the only scenario I can think of that allows George to follow Trayvon any distance from his truck. Other timeline mappers have George east of the clubhouse (where he's always assumed parked) when he starts the call. This allows Trayvon to walk past him (for some reason that's very important to some), but it doesn't allow for George to follow from his truck. That link ignores the issues and just jumps in well after things started.

Boy, Zimm sure got around that night

 

[TobiasFunke]

The lawyer is not without free will. He has options, be they withdrawing or disobeying the court order.

Care to comment on other state ethics rules that call for a lawyer in that situation to allow the defendent to proceed in a narrative fashion without a court order?

If it's a narrative, the client is proceeding on his own without his lawyers help.

I really hope you're being deliberately obtuse. Otherwise, I weep for your clients.

This is like saying you really hope Studs 'n Duds is being deliberately ridiculous.

 

[Christo]

The lawyer is not without free will. He has options, be they withdrawing or disobeying the court order.

Care to comment on other state ethics rules that call for a lawyer in that situation to allow the defendent to proceed in a narrative fashion without a court order?

If it's a narrative, the client is proceeding on his own without his lawyers help.

I really hope you're being deliberately obtuse. Otherwise, I weep for your clients.

 

[Chaos Commish]

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/evidence-that-trayvon-martin-doubled-backThis goes into Commish's or rez (I forgot) about Matrin doubling back. Not sure if he posted this, but it includes a map.

Thanks, that's the gist but it's weak only using ten time stamped lines from the call. There's much better out there. The one I think is closest is at a site with 30 threads and well over 1200 pages. I don't feel like looking for it, but it's the only one I've seen (and I've seen over a dozen) that insists Zimmerman headed due north from his house and was west of the clubhouse when he made the call. This is the only scenario I can think of that allows George to follow Trayvon any distance from his truck. Other timeline mappers have George east of the clubhouse (where he's always assumed parked) when he starts the call. This allows Trayvon to walk past him (for some reason that's very important to some), but it doesn't allow for George to follow from his truck. That link ignores the issues and just jumps in well after things started.

Boy, Zimm sure got around that night

He never made it out of his complex. The reason some put him east of the clubhouse, coming down Twin Trails is because a) his car ended up there, and b) it explains the "he's coming towards" me stuff easily. But that would be a strange route for him to take from his house (not that that matters) and it makes it impossible for Zimmerman to follow Trayvon from his car. Ah crud. I took the bait didn't I? I was about to post the better map and start explaining, but...

 

[renesauz]

Body language expert.

Angry

Prediction #1: 75%+ of posters in this thread will dismiss the expert because it conflicts with their view.

Prediction #2: If Zimmerman is found not guilty, he will kill again.

You have got to be kidding me? This the best you got?Of course he's angry. If his story is true, he SHOULD be angry. As to the second assertion...you're just insane

 

[TexanFan02]

Body language expert.

Angry

Prediction #1: 75%+ of posters in this thread will dismiss the expert because it conflicts with their view.

Prediction #2: If Zimmerman is found not guilty, he will kill again.

You have got to be kidding me? This the best you got?Of course he's angry. If his story is true, he SHOULD be angry. As to the second assertion...you're just insane

Why? Because he's been arrested for shooting someone?

 

[dparker713]

The lawyer is not without free will. He has options, be they withdrawing or disobeying the court order.

Care to comment on other state ethics rules that call for a lawyer in that situation to allow the defendent to proceed in a narrative fashion without a court order?

If it's a narrative, the client is proceeding on his own without his lawyers help.

I really hope you're being deliberately obtuse. Otherwise, I weep for your clients.

You are full of ####. No attorney is going to let him get on the stand and lie.

 

[Christo]

The lawyer is not without free will. He has options, be they withdrawing or disobeying the court order.

Care to comment on other state ethics rules that call for a lawyer in that situation to allow the defendent to proceed in a narrative fashion without a court order?

If it's a narrative, the client is proceeding on his own without his lawyers help.

I really hope you're being deliberately obtuse. Otherwise, I weep for your clients.

You are full of ####. No attorney is going to let him get on the stand and lie.

Like I said, I stand behind that statement. And you've cited nothing that disputes it.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

The lawyer is not without free will. He has options, be they withdrawing or disobeying the court order.

Care to comment on other state ethics rules that call for a lawyer in that situation to allow the defendent to proceed in a narrative fashion without a court order?

If it's a narrative, the client is proceeding on his own without his lawyers help.

I really hope you're being deliberately obtuse. Otherwise, I weep for your clients.

You are full of ####. No attorney is going to let him get on the stand and lie.

I believe Christo explained earlier that the laws in Florida don't allow for thesituation you've beentalking about. If that's the case, then Christo may be correct in saying that Zimmermans attorney would not let him get on the stand and lie..You might as well be arguing about the color of the ocean, what does it have to do with this case?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You are full of ####. No attorney is going to let him get on the stand and lie.

Like I said, I stand behind that statement. And you've cited nothing that disputes it.

There will never be a lawyer now or in the future that allows a witness to lie? Is this some kind of definition "of lawyer" equivalent to federal employees are only allowed to provide accurate information. If you receive inaccurate information the person providing it was not acting in the capacity of a federal employee.

??? Otherwise I'm reasonably certain that a lawyer somewhere has already violated this, even if I cannot provide you the example you will ask for.

 

[dparker713]

The lawyer is not without free will. He has options, be they withdrawing or disobeying the court order.

Care to comment on other state ethics rules that call for a lawyer in that situation to allow the defendent to proceed in a narrative fashion without a court order?

If it's a narrative, the client is proceeding on his own without his lawyers help.

I really hope you're being deliberately obtuse. Otherwise, I weep for your clients.

You are full of ####. No attorney is going to let him get on the stand and lie.

Like I said, I stand behind that statement. And you've cited nothing that disputes it.

I havent needed to cite anything to dispute it. You did it for me. But if you want something more, try comment 7 of the New York Rules of Professional Responsibility 3.3"If a criminal defendant insists on testifying and the lawyer knows that thetestimony will be false, the lawyer may have the option of offering the testimony in a narrativeform, though this option may require advance notice to the court or court approval. The lawyer’sethical duties under paragraphs (a) and (b) may be qualified by judicial decisions interpreting theconstitutional rights to due process and to counsel in criminal cases. The obligation of theadvocate under the Rules of Professional Conduct is subordinate to such requirements."I do find it amusing that you keep refusing to acknowledge the majority rule.

 

[dparker713]

The lawyer is not without free will. He has options, be they withdrawing or disobeying the court order.

Care to comment on other state ethics rules that call for a lawyer in that situation to allow the defendent to proceed in a narrative fashion without a court order?

If it's a narrative, the client is proceeding on his own without his lawyers help.

I really hope you're being deliberately obtuse. Otherwise, I weep for your clients.

You are full of ####. No attorney is going to let him get on the stand and lie.

I believe Christo explained earlier that the laws in Florida don't allow for thesituation you've beentalking about. If that's the case, then Christo may be correct in saying that Zimmermans attorney would not let him get on the stand and lie..You might as well be arguing about the color of the ocean, what does it have to do with this case?

Christo did no such thing. And Christo also made a blanket statement, not something specific to this case or this state.

 

[Christo]

I find it interesting that you didn't include paragraphs 8 and 9:

[8] The prohibition against offering or using false evidence applies only if the lawyer knows that the evidence is false. A lawyer’s reasonable belief that evidence is false does not preclude its presentation to the trier of fact. A lawyer’s actual knowledge that evidence is false, however, can be inferred from the circumstances. See Rule 1.0(k) for the definition of “knowledge.” Thus, although a lawyer should resolve doubts about the veracity of testimony or other evidence in favor of the client, the lawyer cannot ignore an obvious falsehood.

[9] Although paragraph (a)(3) prohibits a lawyer from offering or using evidence the lawyer knows to be false, it permits the lawyer to refuse to offer testimony or other proof that the lawyer reasonably believes to be false. Offering such proof may impair the integrity of an adjudicatory proceeding. Because of the special protections historically provided criminal defendants, however, this Rule does not permit a lawyer to refuse to offer the testimony of a criminal defense client where the lawyer reasonably believes, but does not know, that the testimony will be false. Unless the lawyer knows the testimony will be false, the lawyer must honor the criminal defendant’s decision to testify.

If he knows it's false, he can't let his client testify.

 

[dparker713]

I find it interesting that you didn't include paragraphs 8 and 9:

[8] The prohibition against offering or using false evidence applies only if the lawyer knows that the evidence is false. A lawyers reasonable belief that evidence is false does not preclude its presentation to the trier of fact. A lawyers actual knowledge that evidence is false, however, can be inferred from the circumstances. See Rule 1.0(k) for the definition of knowledge. Thus, although a lawyer should resolve doubts about the veracity of testimony or other evidence in favor of the client, the lawyer cannot ignore an obvious falsehood.

[9] Although paragraph (a)(3) prohibits a lawyer from offering or using evidence the lawyer knows to be false, it permits the lawyer to refuse to offer testimony or other proof that the lawyer reasonably believes to be false. Offering such proof may impair the integrity of an adjudicatory proceeding. Because of the special protections historically provided criminal defendants, however, this Rule does not permit a lawyer to refuse to offer the testimony of a criminal defense client where the lawyer reasonably believes, but does not know, that the testimony will be false. Unless the lawyer knows the testimony will be false, the lawyer must honor the criminal defendants decision to testify.

If he knows it's false, he can't let his client testify.

Nothing you've presented either conflicts what I quoted, supports your initial assertion, or supports your conclusion in this post. Try again.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

The lawyer is not without free will. He has options, be they withdrawing or disobeying the court order.

Care to comment on other state ethics rules that call for a lawyer in that situation to allow the defendent to proceed in a narrative fashion without a court order?

If it's a narrative, the client is proceeding on his own without his lawyers help.

I really hope you're being deliberately obtuse. Otherwise, I weep for your clients.

You are full of ####. No attorney is going to let him get on the stand and lie.

I believe Christo explained earlier that the laws in Florida don't allow for thesituation you've beentalking about. If that's the case, then Christo may be correct in saying that Zimmermans attorney would not let him get on the stand and lie..You might as well be arguing about the color of the ocean, what does it have to do with this case?

Christo did no such thing. And Christo also made a blanket statement, not something specific to this case or this state.

Who was "him" in Christo's quote then if "him" is not Zimmerman?And if your nonsense has nothing to do with this case, why not take it to PM, or make another thread..?

And yes, Christo did say that the provision you quoted was not included in Florida. If you disagree with this then by all means show us.. But if you agree, then you'd also agree you are off topic...

 

[Christo]

I find it interesting that you didn't include paragraphs 8 and 9:

[8] The prohibition against offering or using false evidence applies only if the lawyer knows that the evidence is false. A lawyer’s reasonable belief that evidence is false does not preclude its presentation to the trier of fact. A lawyer’s actual knowledge that evidence is false, however, can be inferred from the circumstances. See Rule 1.0(k) for the definition of “knowledge.” Thus, although a lawyer should resolve doubts about the veracity of testimony or other evidence in favor of the client, the lawyer cannot ignore an obvious falsehood.

[9] Although paragraph (a)(3) prohibits a lawyer from offering or using evidence the lawyer knows to be false, it permits the lawyer to refuse to offer testimony or other proof that the lawyer reasonably believes to be false. Offering such proof may impair the integrity of an adjudicatory proceeding. Because of the special protections historically provided criminal defendants, however, this Rule does not permit a lawyer to refuse to offer the testimony of a criminal defense client where the lawyer reasonably believes, but does not know, that the testimony will be false. Unless the lawyer knows the testimony will be false, the lawyer must honor the criminal defendant’s decision to testify.

If he knows it's false, he can't let his client testify.

Nothing you've presented either conflicts what I quoted, supports your initial assertion, or supports your conclusion in this post. Try again.

 

[Courtjester]

"You guys playing cards??"

Just checking in....

 

[dparker713]

I find it interesting that you didn't include paragraphs 8 and 9:

[8] The prohibition against offering or using false evidence applies only if the lawyer knows that the evidence is false. A lawyer’s reasonable belief that evidence is false does not preclude its presentation to the trier of fact. A lawyer’s actual knowledge that evidence is false, however, can be inferred from the circumstances. See Rule 1.0(k) for the definition of “knowledge.” Thus, although a lawyer should resolve doubts about the veracity of testimony or other evidence in favor of the client, the lawyer cannot ignore an obvious falsehood.

[9] Although paragraph (a)(3) prohibits a lawyer from offering or using evidence the lawyer knows to be false, it permits the lawyer to refuse to offer testimony or other proof that the lawyer reasonably believes to be false. Offering such proof may impair the integrity of an adjudicatory proceeding. Because of the special protections historically provided criminal defendants, however, this Rule does not permit a lawyer to refuse to offer the testimony of a criminal defense client where the lawyer reasonably believes, but does not know, that the testimony will be false. Unless the lawyer knows the testimony will be false, the lawyer must honor the criminal defendant’s decision to testify.

If he knows it's false, he can't let his client testify.

Nothing you've presented either conflicts what I quoted, supports your initial assertion, or supports your conclusion in this post. Try again.

Well, either you need to distinguish what I quoted or assert that the NY Bar Association has been publishing conflicting ethics standards for years.

 

[Christo]

I find it interesting that you didn't include paragraphs 8 and 9:

[8] The prohibition against offering or using false evidence applies only if the lawyer knows that the evidence is false. A lawyer’s reasonable belief that evidence is false does not preclude its presentation to the trier of fact. A lawyer’s actual knowledge that evidence is false, however, can be inferred from the circumstances. See Rule 1.0(k) for the definition of “knowledge.” Thus, although a lawyer should resolve doubts about the veracity of testimony or other evidence in favor of the client, the lawyer cannot ignore an obvious falsehood.

[9] Although paragraph (a)(3) prohibits a lawyer from offering or using evidence the lawyer knows to be false, it permits the lawyer to refuse to offer testimony or other proof that the lawyer reasonably believes to be false. Offering such proof may impair the integrity of an adjudicatory proceeding. Because of the special protections historically provided criminal defendants, however, this Rule does not permit a lawyer to refuse to offer the testimony of a criminal defense client where the lawyer reasonably believes, but does not know, that the testimony will be false. Unless the lawyer knows the testimony will be false, the lawyer must honor the criminal defendant’s decision to testify.

If he knows it's false, he can't let his client testify.

Nothing you've presented either conflicts what I quoted, supports your initial assertion, or supports your conclusion in this post. Try again.

Well, either you need to distinguish what I quoted or assert that the NY Bar Association has been publishing conflicting ethics standards for years.

Jesus, it's two distinctions I've already discussed. The baseline is that a lawyer can't put a client on the stand if he knows he's going to lie. If a client who's a criminal defendant insists upon lying, the lawyer can petition the court on his client's behalf and let the court decide whether the client can take the stand and lie. If the court grants permission, the lawyer does not ask questions because the testimony must be given as a narrative.No lawyer is going to allow his client get on the stand and lie.

 

[Chaos Commish]

No lawyer is going to allow his client get on the stand and lie.

You need to read Grisham.

 

[dparker713]

I find it interesting that you didn't include paragraphs 8 and 9:

[8] The prohibition against offering or using false evidence applies only if the lawyer knows that the evidence is false. A lawyer’s reasonable belief that evidence is false does not preclude its presentation to the trier of fact. A lawyer’s actual knowledge that evidence is false, however, can be inferred from the circumstances. See Rule 1.0(k) for the definition of “knowledge.” Thus, although a lawyer should resolve doubts about the veracity of testimony or other evidence in favor of the client, the lawyer cannot ignore an obvious falsehood.

[9] Although paragraph (a)(3) prohibits a lawyer from offering or using evidence the lawyer knows to be false, it permits the lawyer to refuse to offer testimony or other proof that the lawyer reasonably believes to be false. Offering such proof may impair the integrity of an adjudicatory proceeding. Because of the special protections historically provided criminal defendants, however, this Rule does not permit a lawyer to refuse to offer the testimony of a criminal defense client where the lawyer reasonably believes, but does not know, that the testimony will be false. Unless the lawyer knows the testimony will be false, the lawyer must honor the criminal defendant’s decision to testify.

If he knows it's false, he can't let his client testify.

Nothing you've presented either conflicts what I quoted, supports your initial assertion, or supports your conclusion in this post. Try again.

Well, either you need to distinguish what I quoted or assert that the NY Bar Association has been publishing conflicting ethics standards for years.

Jesus, it's two distinctions I've already discussed. The baseline is that a lawyer can't put a client on the stand if he knows he's going to lie. If a client who's a criminal defendant insists upon lying, the lawyer can petition the court on his client's behalf and let the court decide whether the client can take the stand and lie. If the court grants permission, the lawyer does not ask questions because the testimony must be given as a narrative.No lawyer is going to allow his client get on the stand and lie.

Wow, that's really poor statutory reading. "We further note that not only has the narrative approach received approval in California (People v. Guzman, supra, 45 Cal. 3d 915; People v. Gadson, supra, 19 Cal. App. 4th 1700) but it has also been approved by several other jurisdictions (see Lowery v. Cardwell, supra, 575 F.2d 727, 731; Coleman v. State (Alaska 1980) 621 P.2d 869, 881; State v. Waggoner (1993) 124 Idaho 716, 721-722 [864 P.2d 162, 167-168]; People v. Taggart (1992) 233 Ill.App.3d 530, 558-559 [174 Ill.Dec. 717, 599 N.E.2d 501, 521]; Matter of Goodwin (1983) 279 S.C. 274, 277 [305 S.E.2d 578, 580]; State v. Layton (1993) 189 W.Va. 470, 484-485 [432 S.E.2d 740, 754-755] [". . . the trial court appropriately weighed the conflicting interests involved and, in this Court's opinion, adopted a procedure which allowed the defendant to testify, which shielded the attorney from unethical and illegal conduct, and which advanced the societal interest in the administration of justice"]; see also Com. v. Jermyn (1993) 533 Pa. 194, 200 [620 A.2d 1128, 1131]).

We conclude the narrative approach best accommodates the competing interests of the defendant's constitutional right to testify and the attorney's ethical obligations." People v. Johnson, 62 Cal.App.4th 608 (1998)

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Lawyer fight!!!!!

 

[TexanFan02]

Lawyer fight!!!!!

Bigbottom already #####slapped Christo. This one's not that interesting. Even though I think I may have started it, in an offhand way.

 

[jon_mx]

"You guys playing cards??" Just checking in....

Yes, lots of card playing. Not all the decks are full.

 

[TexanFan02]

Here, link is from Fox, so the mouthbreathers shouldn't take offense:

Zimmerman website shut down

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Here, link is from Fox, so the mouthbreathers shouldn't take offense:

Zimmerman website shut down

Let me guess.. ^ Evidence that he's guilty of murder and that he'll kill again..

 

[BroadwayG]

Here, link is from Fox, so the mouthbreathers shouldn't take offense:

Zimmerman website shut down

Any point you'd like to make?

 

[TexanFan02]

Here, link is from Fox, so the mouthbreathers shouldn't take offense:

Zimmerman website shut down

Any point you'd like to make?

Not currently. Is posting news relevant to the thread wrong now?