| Print article | This entry was posted by Gideon on June 22, 2009 at 9:01 pm, and is filed under ct legal news. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
search the blog
Loadingrecent comments
- A Voice of Sanity on CT death penalty nothing but arbitrary
- A Voice of Sanity on The engine that just didn’t give a f*ck
- A Voice of Sanity on The uselessness of crossing an eyewitness
- Free-ish on Mi case es su case
- DOJ finds widespread racial profiling in East Haven on Sundown comes to East Haven
- Bay Area Lawyer on Courthouse Steps Syndrome
- Helping jurors ‘see’ what eye witnesses said they saw « The Jury Room on Witnessing bullshit
- Rita Handrich on Witnessing bullshit
- LJS on Witnessing bullshit
- Gideon on Witnessing bullshit
terms of use
Nothing on this blog is legal advice.
Read the Legal Disclaimer and Privacy Policy.
For the full comments policy, click here.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial Share Alike 3.0 License.
-
-
Categories
- "Baker" claims
- abortion
- Adam Walsh Act
- aro
- asides
- bail
- Books
- campaign
- cheshire
- clients
- confessions
- cops
- criminal law principles
- crumbs
- ct legal news
- ct state law
- Current Affairs
- david pollitt
- death penalty
- dna
- double jeopardy
- drug offenses
- dui
- dumb laws
- ethics
- euthanasia/pas
- events
- evidence
- eyewitness id
- federal criminal issues
- fifth amendment
- first amendment
- fourth amendment
- georgia
- guns
- habeas
- immigration
- inmate issues
- innocence
- internet privacy
- judges
- julie amero
- jumpstart
- juries
- juveniles
- kerrigan
- lawyers as people
- link dump
- mental health
- michael ross
- moi
- open thread
- pd system
- pd victories
- prison overcrowding
- proposed legislation
- prosecutors
- psa
- racial disparity
- rants
- residency restrictions
- rewind
- same-sex marriages
- sentencing
- sex offenders
- sixth amendment
- smart on crime
- snitching
- sunday stupidity
- supreme court
- technical
- this month
- tv shows
- Uncategorized
- US legal news
- videotaped interrogations
- we are real lawyers too
- Weblogs
- whaaaa?
- wrongful convictions
-
Tags
aclu attorney general cheshire connecticut cops criminal law principles ct legal news ct state law david pollitt death penalty dna evidence eyewitness identification fifth amendment fourth amendment habeas iac indigent defense inmate issues judge handy jumpstart moi new york pd system plea bargaining prison overcrowding procedural default proposed legislation psa racial profiling registration residency restrictions retroactive right to counsel SCOC self-defense sentencing sex offenders sixth amendment snitching state law susan bysiewicz tonya craft voir dire wrongful convictions
Mystique theme by digitalnature | Powered by WordPress
RSS Feeds XHTML 1.1 Top
RSS Feeds XHTML 1.1 Top

about 2 years ago
Alright, I’m way behind and just catching up on Tivo. All I know about trials is what I learned reading courtroom dramas, but can somebody tell me, when the judge wanted to start the trial and the prosecutor said she wasn’t ready, why did Jerry try to help her out? Shouldn’t he have pushed for a dismissal or something? Or maybe just stood up and announced he was ready for trial immediately? She didn’t have her witnesses in court. How could he lose?
about 2 years ago
Which episode are you referring to? Ideally, if the prosecutor wasn’t ready and the judge was pushing him/her to start, I’d sit back and watch and then when the State had nothing, I’d move for a judgment of acquittal based on the fact that they put on no evidence.
Maybe he wanted a favor in return?
about 2 years ago
Oh, sorry. That was in ep 2, which I guess you missed. Michelle and Jerry agree to a future court date, but when they show up in court, Farnsworth announces his rule that “There shall be no consent adjournment without prior approval by this court.”
Michelle: Your honor, we’re not prepared to start trial this morning.
Farnsworth: You’re on the calendar.
Michelle: I haven’t notified my witnesses.
Farnsworth: That was probably a mistake.
Jerry: Yeah, we didn’t know about your rules, Judge.
Farnsworth has a little more to say, but he sets a trial date. Jerry probably wasn’t going to get an immediate acquittal anyway, so I guess maybe he wanted to stay on good terms with Michelle, but it just seemed odd that he didn’t try.