Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
12. That's not exactly what the lawyer said.
Fri Jul 5, 2013, 08:11 PM
Jul 2013

That may be what you heard. But for the first issue, what he said was that there is no evidence that contraverts GZ's claim that TM hit GZ first. (or attacked him or whatever the language was)

That is actually true. There IS no evidence that GZ hit TM first, or that TM did not sucker punch GZ.

It is perfectly permissible, and it's his duty actually, to present the evidence in the best light for his client (that's true for the prosecution, too). That's his job.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»So in arguing for an acqu...»Reply #12