Untitled Article

reason that you may not have a client testify as because look, if you've made headway in establishing reasonable doubt, establishing whether or not he knew he was lying on the form establishing whether or not he was addicted at the time, establishing whether or not at this particular moment he wasn't using, but then he resumed his many addicts. do you go up and down perhaps you leave it there because it's reasonable doubt i think this case turns a lot on what we call omar jury nullification. what does that mean? it means that a jury could say that potentially he did do this, but should we really be here? should we be here for the fact that a person who had a gun for 11 days wasn't used with respect to any other violent crime, was certainly addicted at the time was going through really hard experience. we know that the jurors themselves has have had experience as it relates to knowing someone who is addicted. so they could be somewhat empathetic and does he now? get on the stand and say, hey, i was going through a difficult time at that specific moment. i wasn't addicted. i did relapse. i was doing the