No. of Recommendations: 7
If Geragos, Dersh, Turley, etc need legal direction from you, doesn’t that prove it’s a complicated case for these jurors? Are these lawyers all lightweight pikers with no experience?
They're not lightweight pikers, but that doesn't mean their arguments are good. Any more than Laurence Tribe's arguments are good simply because he's not a lightweight piker. You have to actually assess their arguments
As I've pointed out to you several times in this thread, Dershowitz doesn't seem to have informed himself at all about the actual legal claims in the case. I don't think he's even paying much attention to the actual proceedings, rather than what people are saying about the proceedings - there's no way that someone who had actually read the prosecution's case could have misstated their arguments as badly as Dersh did. Turley's a better writer and advocate, but he also doesn't seem to be bothering to look into what the law in New York actually is.
That's the thing about lawyers and the law - you can have two heavyweight non-pikers disagree on what the law is.
Does that mean it's a complicated case for the jurors? Not necessarily. The debate over whether FECA (a federal law) can serve as the object crime for a state business records prosecution can be a very complicated one that legal minds disagree about - but the jurors never have to deal with that legal argument. They're just given instructions that incorporate the judge's ruling. In fact, most of the debates that Dersh and Turley get into are about legal matters that are just not before the jurors.
