How do you win this one?

Client is in possession of child pornography. The Government has lawfully obtained his computer and a search reflects many images of items depicting graphic acts with preschoolers. The Government’s only offer is more time than the client can face. Forensic analysis has been done. We know what the pictures are and where they came from. Client lives along.

We could use some help on this one.

Norm

I did find Gerry’s expression aimed at the prosecutor during the objections during closing arguments to be frightening. I do not know if in fact Gerry was angry at the prosecutor when he objected to Gerry’s closing 24 times. But each time the prosecutor was overruled, he got more and more frantic. He became out of control in his objections. They did become silly and a source of amusement for the entire courtroom. In particular when Gerry said how he didn’t object to the prosecutor’s closing and hoped he would receive same courtesy . . . bang, objection. It was as if Gerry put the fishing line out that, and he bit. Gerry’s story was not lost at all during the pauses the objections brought and in fact, highlighted most of Gerry’s points. Did Gerry threaten and dare the prosecutor to object again with his sideways looks? Did the prosecutor just get desperate with his objections or was this the reaction of frightened counsel?

When the idea comes to me (through my own thought process or that of my client or co counsel to issue a threat, I ask myself why are we willing to threaten but unwilling to act? If there is a reason not to act–it usually applies as a reason not to threaten. If there is no reason to withhold the threat, then there usually is no reason against simply acting without the useless act of threatening.

But for the threat of the French and, we would have seen them as valiant athletes who gave their best effort and worthy of respect. Because they threatened, we saw them as idiots and big losers and we did not like them.

The same dynamic applies in litigation and in life.

Excellent example, Gerry.

I didn’t find Gerry’s expressions towards the prosecutor in closings to be angry or intimidating. They were mostly bemusement – and also thereby deflecting the “badness” intended to be assigned by the objection. Gerry did not lose the apparent high-ground despite the earnest objections – Gerry has a phenomenal ability to project a more complex understanding of the world than simple bad/evil – and to integrate the prosecutor’s projection of badness into a larger viewpoint that effectively dissolves the idea of badness.

I don’ t know quite how that played out with the jurors – and would be fascinating to know – if they revealed any of that. It seemed to me that some of them were truly ambivalent about the outcome from the video interviews we saw online.

How many thought Feiger did nothing wrong?
How many thought he did do something wrong, but that the prove was not airtight?

How many concurred with the governmental abuse ideas or were persuaded that the decisions were made locally?

How solid is the basis of the confidence Gerry expresses that the Justice department was pursuing a political end with this case – as opposed to the “highly fair” judgements the government says they made at the local level, etc.???

Mark

Sometimes I would even smile at him and with a gesture suggest he object to something to which the government might well take umbrage. And then, as if in obedient response he would. Sometimes the jurors laughed.

His excessive objections backfired. He was soon seen as a lawyer who didn’t want the truth to come out, who had something to hide, or who was being unfair with his opponent.

Gerry