By Nicholas Stix
HLN has a panel of four “experts,” defense attorneys—Eric Guster (black), Darren Kavinoky (white), Joey Jackson (black) and Kimberley Priest Johnson (white). About 30 minutes ago, they were discussing Michael Dunn’s testimony in his own defense. All four condemned Dunn’s testimony: “A lot of polish, a lot of preparation, not a lot of authenticity” (Kavinoky). “’Thug music’? What does that tell us about him?” (Jackson). “Overcoached by his defense attorney” (Johnson).
Not one of the attorneys decrying Dunn’s lack of “authenticity” mentioned how rare it is for a defendant to testify in his own defense, because the downside is so big. It is so easy for prosecutors to make most defendants look guilty on the witness stand. It takes a tremendous amount of preparation, and a bright defendant, to counter-act the prosecution’s advantage. Had Dunn not been “polished” and “prepared,” his attorney would have been guilty of incompetence, in inadequately preparing him. HLN’s “experts” turned the reality upside down, and depicted Dunn’s preparedness as a sign of guilt.
These guys are not talking like defense attorneys, but like prosecutors!
It was the same thing during the Zimmerman trial and even in the Duke Lacrosse Hoax. Usually, the defense attorneys brought on to comment are either pro-defense or try to explain what the defense attorneys are doing. In these cases, every so-called lawyer is pro-prosecution.
ReplyDeleteDavid In TN