Meantime, Diddy's lawyers have moved for a mistrial because they say that they have proof one of the prosecution's witnesses lied. TMZ covers it here.The judge wrongfully scolded Diddy this week for nodding and looking at jurors while the prosecutor is able to put on witnesses who are sobbing. Another example of how trials are so slanted towards the prosecution. I discussed on @CNN with @jessicadean pic.twitter.com/dvHaJ2ssws
— David Oscar Markus (@domarkus) June 8, 2025
10 comments:
Emotion - yes. Trying to engage jurors - no. The threat to exclude was weak by the judge. Sign of insecurity. Explaining it is not acceptable and will not be tolerated would have been sufficient.
"prosecutors prep witnesses on how to behave on the stand"
if by that, you mean, listen to the question, answer truthfully and succinctly, i would hope as an attorney both sides "prep" their witnesses. funny, you omit that upon taking the stand, the witness first takes an oath. after direct testimony, said witness is subject to cross-examination. diddy has taken no oath (yet) and his nodding, etc. are not subject to immediate cross-examination. if he has something to add, he can do that through testimony, at which time, his gesturing or eye contact with the jury wouldn't be inappropriate. should a non-testifying victim be allowed to make unchecked outbursts not subject to oath or cross?
Ridiculous. You think the jury needs to see a defendant's reaction to know they agree with favorable cross or testimony. It is the interaction that is not appropriate, and he should be cautioned not to do it. But remaining devoid of emotion when fighting for his life? Come on.
Unless it is exaggerated, the judge should chill out. A defendant is a human being....even if he is a very BAD one.
Yes but I think it backfires. I don’t like clients vigorously nodding their head in agreement or disagreement (especially if they are disagreeing with my closing). But nothing is better than going sidebar and pointing out to the judge when a prosecutor is shaking THEIR head during my cross. That always gets their goat. I highly recommend it under the right circumstances.
Nothing wrong with a prosecutor giving tips to witnesses about how to behave on the stand. From "don't pick your nose" to "if defense counsel is getting under your skin, s/he is doing it on purpose. Don't take the bait" to "answer the defense counsel's questions same as you would mine, they deserve and answer." But coaching a defendant - who will not testify - to appear dumb in front of the jury is misleading the jury, and David M celebrates that.
Misleading the jury? Yeah right. And of course don’t forget the prosecution is allowed to pay witnesses off with freedom for their testimony but tell the jury “there’s no expectation of a deal”. I guess that’s not misleading.
Hardly comparable, 9:35. The cooperation deals are legal, disclosed, subject to cross examination, and enforced by the judge. Defendants who dress up and act for the jury are not subject to cross unless they testify, which they do not when they are acting dumb.
Totally false. The “deal” doesn’t even happen until AFTER the testimony when the prosecutor decides what percentage off the sentence should be recommended. Then the judge can do whatever he wants. And all the while the witness says “no promises were ever made.” Truthful? Maybe. Misleading? 100%
You KNOW (if you try cases in Florida) there are some attorneys in the SDFL that are notorious for back room deals, so it doesn't look like they've made a deal to their supervisors- but they have! I can think of one or two who used to do drug cases, lazy as he'll!
Post a Comment