in addition to attacking their motivations, which they did via cross examination. the defense being very confident the attacks on those particular victims would bear fruit particularly given they were decades old allegations and so they made as a defense a calculated assessment not to put their client on the stand. last point, whatever you put a client on the stand, it's not about whether the government has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt but can we believe the particular defendant? were they credible? did they answer questions to anyone's satisfaction? when you put someone on the stand, it's not only about the narrative she would have had to indicate to the jury she was smitten by epstein and just as well as really taking advantage of him like everybody else was but she would be subject to cross examination and i think that would have been a lot to overcome so the final analysis, i just don't know that that would have made the difference at the end of the day the government had the goods and i think the jury spoke to that today. >> and the jury did have, what,
Related Keywords
Victims , Defense , Fruit , Motivations , Cross Examination , Attacks , Addition , Defense A , Allegations , Point , Beyonda Reasonable Doubt , United States Government , Whatever , Case , Defendant , Stand , Client , Assessment , The Stand , Someone , Jury , Jeffrey Ens Epstein , Questions , Advantage , Satisfaction , Anyone , Narrative , Lot , Difference , Analysis , Examination , Goods , Subject , Everybody Else ,
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.