General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMaureen McDonnell bares own jugular as husband Bob desperately uses classic "cutthroat defence".
Cut-throat defense refers to a defense in criminal proceedings where a defendant gives evidence on his/her own behalf. The purpose of the defense is to strengthen the prosecution case against his/her co-defendant.
The following is an example of a case law on cut-throat defense:
Cut-throat defense is when the prosecution tries to convict two people of the same crime. And there are two defendants over there saying that the other one did it. [Ex parte Washington, 562 So. 2d 1304 (Ala. 1990)]
............................
It never works, it is the Hail Mary of Hail Mary's in a criminal defence lawyers play book. But when it is all you got and the one whose throat is being slit is willing, what do you have to lose?
Bob is cooked, his wife should be indicted for obstruction of justice when this trial is over.
(Washington Post)
First lady cries as closing argument ends
"Maureen McDonnell turned, crying, and embraced her children after attorney William Burke finished his closing argument in her defense. As Maureen hugged her daughter Rachel, who was also crying, son Sean McDonnell kissed the top of his mothers head. She huddled together with Rachel, Sean, daughter Cailin, and son Bobby as another defense attorney, Heather Martin, passed them tissues.
Throughout the closing Maureen sat clasping Martins hand. It was hard to see her face from the front of the courtroom; she appeared to be staring in the direction of the jurors. Robert F. McDonnell also stared towards the jury, blinking often and looking tired. One juror took occasional notes; the rest appeared to be listening dutifully to the evidence. None of the jurors laughed during the occasional light moments in Burkes statement, although supporters of the McDonnells did several times."
underpants
(182,829 posts)Thanks for the info on the cutthroat defense.
"Weird is not a crime"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025461628
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)underpants
(182,829 posts)Ooh you all are overdoing it. But it just kept going.
That jury is so used to weirdness at this point that their histrionic displays are bouncing of them.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)I can't imagine a reasonable jury voting to acquit.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)agree with the quote, but is not an unheard of sentiment.