You say Mike's comment makes 'perfect sense'. Can you present an argument for that Joseph that will not take up more that two legal size pages and make sense as well?
You say Mike's comment makes 'perfect sense'. Can you present an argument for that Joseph that will not take up more that two legal size pages and make sense as well?
Two lead attorneys spend five years building a difficult case, with support of their boss, and are coming to the end of the process, and suddenly, they have a new boss who quashes the investigation. They quit. Those are the basic facts, right? The question is, why?
Two hypotheses are obvious, amid others.
1) Michael's hypothesis is that the new boss is a shill who shut down the investigation for corrupt motives, and the attorneys quit in disgust.
2) JR's hypothesis is that the new boss is clearer-eyed than the old boss, concluded that the case could not succeed, and decided to shut down the investigation as a waste of time and resources. The attorneys quit in disgust.
A third variant suggests itself.
3) The new boss, taking over, started asking some hard questions of the two attorneys, the attorneys did not have good answers and, "not feeling appropriately supported" by their new boss, threatened to walk out. The boss, angry at being railroaded by his subordinates and concerned by the lack of good answers, decides to call their bluff and shut down the project, after which the attorneys quit.
All three of these hypotheses, in the absence of evidence, make perfect sense. I've seen all three scenarios play out in corporate environments over much lower-stakes conflicts.
Fern is correct; it`s called an "Opening Argument" which must resonate with a Jury & be supported by copious amounts of admissible evidence. Note, jurors have done their own property evaluations.
Jury questionnaies, jury selection & necessary disqualifications are Trial skills. Sidebars with prospective jurors saves a lot of the limited number of DQ's.
You say Mike's comment makes 'perfect sense'. Can you present an argument for that Joseph that will not take up more that two legal size pages and make sense as well?
It seems pretty obvious to me.
Two lead attorneys spend five years building a difficult case, with support of their boss, and are coming to the end of the process, and suddenly, they have a new boss who quashes the investigation. They quit. Those are the basic facts, right? The question is, why?
Two hypotheses are obvious, amid others.
1) Michael's hypothesis is that the new boss is a shill who shut down the investigation for corrupt motives, and the attorneys quit in disgust.
2) JR's hypothesis is that the new boss is clearer-eyed than the old boss, concluded that the case could not succeed, and decided to shut down the investigation as a waste of time and resources. The attorneys quit in disgust.
A third variant suggests itself.
3) The new boss, taking over, started asking some hard questions of the two attorneys, the attorneys did not have good answers and, "not feeling appropriately supported" by their new boss, threatened to walk out. The boss, angry at being railroaded by his subordinates and concerned by the lack of good answers, decides to call their bluff and shut down the project, after which the attorneys quit.
All three of these hypotheses, in the absence of evidence, make perfect sense. I've seen all three scenarios play out in corporate environments over much lower-stakes conflicts.
Does that clarify?
Joseph.
Yes, Why would the new DA interrupt the grand jury process EVEN if he had a perception different from the people who spent FIVE years on it.
Let it play out like all the rest of them do. If the grand jury produces no indictments, well, there you have it.
BUT WE WILL NEVER KNOW now will we.?
Much time and many suppositions would have been unnecessary had you read the article in question. See the link below.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/05/nyregion/trump-investigation-manhattan-da-alvin-bragg.html?searchResultPosition=1
Fern, in a separate post I point out flaws in the NY Times article.
True statement. It's behind a paywall I'm not paying for.
"Makes no sense" is (in my mind) quite distinct from "is not supported by the evidence."
Fern is correct; it`s called an "Opening Argument" which must resonate with a Jury & be supported by copious amounts of admissible evidence. Note, jurors have done their own property evaluations.
Bryan, Thank you for the amicus brief. Can I take you with me?
Jury questionnaies, jury selection & necessary disqualifications are Trial skills. Sidebars with prospective jurors saves a lot of the limited number of DQ's.
Oh, those Sidebars are intoxicating.