DeSantis openly condemns the World Economic Forum and their globalist policies.
(mobile.twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (92)
sorted by:
The TLDR version is that he demanded to be the face of the case and withdrew his resources when he thought they were disrespecting him. He also refused to listen to the other Defense attorneys when they said that they knew what they were doing and had argued in front of that judge and local juries. He also insisted on his whole jury selection theory that is actually a fairly controversial idea that is highly debated if it even works (hence why they didn’t trust it). And we have since learned the jury was on Kyles side the second they walked in to deliberation and just wanted to look at all evidence again before making their ruling (rather than his theory of political jurors).
So he is not as smart as he seems, at least outside of Constitutional law.
You got me expecting a lot so when you come in with that it just seems like you're grasping at straws. A lot of that just seems like their word versus his. The defense was pretty terrible in that case and Barnes was far from the only person pointing it out. Essentially every single lawyer I watched said similar things.
Where did we supposedly learn this? Realistically the only way we would learn this was one of the jurors speaking up about it, and I have a hard time believing any of them would ever try to spin it as "yeah some of us were being political hacks and were slowly forced to acknowledge he was innocent."
Regardless, going from memory when I've heard him talking about jury selection, it's always about analyzing demographics and specific types of people that make up the local communities to get a better inkling which way they may lean in the case. I'm not a lawyer, so would you be able to explain what aspect of his jury selection philosophy is controversial?
The dozen or so on "LawTube" were unanimous that Rittenhouse was the most clear-cut case of self-defense they'd ever seen go to trial. So gp can't really say "well local folksy lawyer won so he must have been right after all".
When Barnes is talking about a law trade thing and best practice I'll believe him; he's a good laywer. When he's pontificating as if he's the smartest guy on any topic - which is everything he ever says - well that's just your opinion dude.
Yeah no qualms with that. I think that goes for a lot of people though. There aren't all that many good people in the political sphere that don't have that Type A, borderline arrogant, "what I'm saying is right" feel to them. No need to take his word for things even when he is talking about law matters; people can think for themselves. I just was annoyed coming into this thread seeing a circle jerk that was dogging on him for reasons that seemed quite unfair.
Maybe from Law-Tube, which isnt necessarily wrong. But I did see my fair share of lawyers who said the defense wasnt terrible, it just wasnt flashy. But it worked for the particular area it was being done in.
And perhaps those accusations about Barnes are "he said, she said", but he has had enough moments of being an arrogant ass that I can believe it (although like you pointed out below, perhaps that just comes with the territory).
Have you not been paying attention to the Left over the last few years? They would absolutely do that, because it would give them cred in their own circles. If the juror he was worried about was actually a raging Leftoid, you know damn well she would have done exactly that, and then turned it into a point about how the US is inherently racist. While jurors speaking off the record about what happened during deliberation is also "he said, she said", the fact none of them have tried to make a big deal about it even a year later tells me its at least has weight to it.
I am also not a lawyer, but these are the things brought up by one that I saw pointing out how his theory doesnt work. Specifically, there are two major issues with it:
Both parties get a say in selecting the jury, and if you are trying to use demo-analysis to stack the deck in your favor, basically the only way you can do it is if the other party are so smooth brained they will let you get away with it uncontested, which is extremely unlikely. And the second the other party picks someone who go against your preference, now you run the risk of a hung jury or losing the case. And if you do get that far, the other party can try and pick at a weakness of your demographic, or even use it against you in appeals ("my client was denied a fair trial!").
In short, juries are too random to guess what they would do based on just the demographic data. Every lawyer has that story or has a friend with the story of a case where they thought that they had the perfect jury, a friendly judge, and a rock-solid case, only to lose with the jury because one of them just got a bug up their ass over something completely random that you could have never planned for.
I can't say either of those issues really hit home with me. It would be all about doing it better than the other side. There isn't any downside to being conscious of the cultural and social context of the area the case is in. Its all about gaining a slim advantage. If it's 1% or 2% that is still a gain. I'm sure he can overplay its usefulness or effectiveness, but the fundamental concepts are pretty much self evident, so long as you acknowledge that juries are biased and will have preconceptions/make decisions swayed by politics.
He's not as smart as he seems, but Kyle's lead attorney was arguably shit, and when he came out on day 2 or something and said they were trying to throw the case; I'd already come to that conclusion. They were bumbling and incompetent. We'd already seen where solid facts and evidence with a competent attorney can land you in a partisan trial after the George Floyd trial: life sentences for you and everyone who was around you in contradiction to all available evidence.