Defense attorney groaner of the week
« previous post | next post »
Just about 13 years ago, O.J. Simpson defense attorney Johnnie Cochran made news with these words from his closing argument:
Remember these words: "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit". (.wav)
I'm not saying that this useful rhyme was the key to Simpson's acquittal, but it certainly stuck in people's minds. Together with images of O.J. struggling to put the gloves on, the significance of the ill-fitting glove evidence to the outcome of the trial is not a matter of significant debate. It certainly didn't hurt that Cochran was an effective speaker.
Compare this with yesterday's news reports of the opening statements from the trial of Osama bin Laden's driver Salim Hamdan, whose civilian defense attorney Harry Schneider has been quoted as follows:
The evidence is that he worked for wages, he didn't wage attacks on America […] He had a job because he had to earn a living, not because he had a jihad against America.
Get it? "he worked for wages" vs. "he didn't wage attacks" — see? "He had a job vs. "not because he had a jihad". See?
If this is the best Schneider can do against the prosecution's argument that Hamdan knew about "the dome" — which the U.S. prosecution team is arguing refers to the U.S. Capitol building (Navy Lt. Cmdr. Timothy Stone: "Virtually no one knew the intended target, but the accused knew") — then Hamdan looks to be in big trouble.
Angelo Mercado said,
July 23, 2008 @ 10:48 am
Do they teach Classical rhetoric in law school?
Note also the alliteration “worked for wages”, the repetition “(-)n(o)t … [PREP] America”.
Mark P said,
July 23, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
Maybe they can close better, but one would hope that a military jury would not be swayed as much by rhetorical flourishes as a civilian jury, especially a civilian jury with a predisposition.
Ray Girvan said,
July 23, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
The rhetoric sounds as if it was scripted by The Sphinx.
Peter said,
July 23, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
I think that this is a pretty good use of rhetoric, especially in our rhetoric-deprived age. And I don't believe that any jury, civilian or military, will be swayed by rhetoric standing alone. They will decide – IMO – based on the evidence. But evidence is usually subject to some interpretation, and to the extent that Hamdan's theory of the case is that there is plenty of evidence that H. worked for ObL, but little evidence that he participated in the attacks, this is an effective piece of rhetoric, in the sense that at least the jury will understand and remember the defense's theory of the case.
Whether they buy it when considering the evidence is another matter, of course.
>If this is the best Schneider can do against the prosecution's argument that >Hamdan knew about "the dome" — which the U.S. prosecution team is >arguing refers to the U.S. Capitol building (Navy Lt. Cmdr. Timothy Stone: >"Virtually no one knew the intended target, but the accused knew") — then >Hamdan looks to be in big trouble.
That's true enough, I suppose, but I think it's worth waiting for the defense to actually present their evidence rather than to judge their case solely on their opening statement.
Dave said,
July 23, 2008 @ 1:51 pm
I don't think you quoted it right – it should be "_if_ it doesn't fit, you must acquit", not "it it doesn't fit, you must acquit".
Eric Bakovic said,
July 23, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
@ Dave: thanks, that was a typo — I've fixed it.
@ Mark P and Peter: I've added "Humor" to the list of categories for this post.
Mark P said,
July 23, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
I guess "Humor" is appropriate because I laughed when I read your comment.
Julia K said,
July 23, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
@ Ray:
Oh man, the Sphinx! I'm not a huge fan of that movie, but the quotes you linked to set me laughing to tears. That's exactly what this sounds like.
Theophylact said,
July 23, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
Cochran was an effective speaker, but he died three years ago.
asdf said,
July 23, 2008 @ 8:01 pm
I think "not because he had a jihad" should be paired with "he had to earn a living", not "he had a job". He's saying the guy had a job because he had X, not because he had Y. Of course they're different kinds of "had" but I guess that makes your point.
J.. Del Col said,
July 25, 2008 @ 10:31 am
I doubt that anything Schneider says or does will affect the outcome of this 'trial.' He's doing the best he can in a rigged game.
That said, Schneider is in good company–
"…the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." FDR
"If we don't hang together, we'll hang separately." B. Franklin
"Your argument is sound, nothing but sound." B. Franklin
Not to mention Lennon and McCartney–
"Please, Please me."
"Love, love me do…
And Antoine, 'Fats" Domino–
"Though we're apart, you're a part of me still…"
J. Del Col