The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
13 comments:
I guess the first amendment dude whimped out
Tough loss. Defense attorney did a fantastic job. Great fighter.
If one breaks the law, he has to be punished. The US attorney Mr. Shipley did a great job trying a difficult case. Terrorist financing is one of the toughest cases to win, the US attorney's team did great job to convince the jury that this guy was financing terrorists.
Rumpole: you are full of shit. Putting on his client to testify that all of his taped admissions were lies does not propel defense counsel into the realm of brilliance. To the contrary, that strategy demonstrated rank stupidity. At that point, the trial became a slow plea.
Trying a difficult case? Did you read about what this guy said on the tapes? The defense couldn't call any defense witnesses from Pakistan! Difficult case my ass.
You assume the defense attorney wanted his client to testify. If the client wants to testify, the lawyer can't stop him. I may be full of something....yeah...it's knowledge of the law. Law school and half a life practicing law tells me that. So go back to flipping burgers and reading the Herald's account of the case.
Rumpole,
I take offense. I flipped burgers. I flipped burgers well. It was the most glorious of a long line of menial jobs. And I know you well enough to know that you value folks who bruised their knees along the way and earned their keep. So I chalk up your comment above to some clueless plea lawyer trying to tell you how to do your business.
But the herald part of your comment? Spot on. What trash.
Rumpole: your view of practicing law is sophomoric. Yeah, it's as simple as the defendant wishing to testify -- end of story. Okay Polyanna. Keep up the good work with your lucrative county court practice, you two bit hack. And, by the way, eat another donut, whil you're at it.
Handing you an "e" for "while" and a dictionary. What I cannot give you is a brain, an education, a clue about law, or a life.
Rumpole, lets go get a beer and a burger on the water.
I'm buying.
My understanding of the case is that after he could not get the Pakistani witnesses testimony, there was no other choice but to call his client. Defense was gutted. These are tough calls and no right or wrong. The fact that the jury was out for a week leads me to conclude the defense did an outstanding job. Easy to criticize anonymously.
"The defendant’s attorney, Wahid, said prosecutors selected a couple of hundred snippets from some 35,000 recorded phone conversations to depict Khan as a terrorist sympathizer by presenting them “out of context” to the jury."
My question: why didn't the attorney present or question witnesses about other snippets of the 35,000 recordings? Did he bother to review all of them or did he just ask the government which ones the plan on using, and then focused on those? Chances are, he may have found something to work with to support the defense.
Rumpole: Try working out on a treadmill. You can eat your donut at the same time. Then, off to County Court to work out some speeding tickets! You're my hero.
Post a Comment