Comment by bloobloobloo
9 years ago
In other words, she didn't defend him the way you feel that she should have.
We'll just make a list of all the arguments that are okay to advance in court, so then lawyers know which ones are forbidden.
That seems like a good concept with no far-reaching implications.
You are generalizing well beyond the scope of the action.
A lawyer went to prison, for statements she made, in court, in defense of her client.
The action doesn't need embellishment from me.
Do details no longer matter?
"A man was arrested for walking." and "A man was arrested for walking and aiming a rifle at a woman." are clearly different actions.
A lawyer went to prison, for illegal statements she made, in court, in defense of her client. These illegal statements that would be illegal even outside the context of being a federal court lawyer.
I can't understand this fetish of generalizing to the point of total vagueness. Case-by-case analysis is just as important now as ever.
5 replies →