This is pretty off-topic, but I had to pass it along. Watching a movie earlier today, I sat up and took notice when, during a conversation that contained swear words, “a**hole” was replaced by “Ashcroft”.
That’s what it sounded like (and not having DVR, I couldn’t go back and check to make sure) and I’ll swear by it for now.
You’re such an Ashcroft. Nice.
My apologies for this absence. I’ve been a little pre-occupied with both work and non-work things.
A few years ago, I had the opportunity to speak to a jury after a verdict. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty for my client (which was good), but when we got to question them about what they based their verdict on, I was a little surprised.
It was a claim of self-defense, but they found that the state hadn’t met its burden on one of the elements of the crime. In fact, they had dismissed self-defense pretty immediately. The jury truly is a “black box”. You know what goes in and you know what comes out. What happens in there is a mystery. It underscored the importance of putting on every bit of evidence that would help to explain the client’s story or defense. It further highlighted (for me) the need to be extremely clear in closing argument and use simple, straight-forward terms; to break everything down into its smallest pieces.
The same thing happened somewhat recently with a decision issued by a court. The holding was not in my client’s favor, but not for the reason I had anticipated. Teaches you not to ignore even the most obvious legal arguments and I wonder if the opinion would have been any different had I briefed what seemed to me a “no-brainer”.
The next time, I will be better.