Page 22 - Defense Perspective News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

Shoe. number four, you have the identification as it relates to his eyebrows. there is just so many issues here with regard to -- that need to be explains and in the absence of an innocence explanation it becomes problematic. so how i would look at it from a defense perspective, it is a challenging case based upon the possible cause that was laidute in the affidavit. what is probable cause? reason to believe a crime was committed and that you committed it, the individual at issue. but based on that, boy, is it compelling and damning evidence. >> chief ramsey, one thing that is clear is that po...

In a certain sense it makes sense, michael cohen, he was an attorney, there may be privileged documents there. here though there's no client privilege, he's asserting executive privilege which is bizarre. as i mentioned a moment ago the branch trying to seize the document goes is the executive branch. the current executive branch is trying to get its own documents back. in this context i think on the merits there's no good argument for a special master here. could trump get one out of deference to him because he is the former president? i don't know, but i don't think there's a strong argument...

Expressing and use that to have evidentiary value? the supreme court declining to hear that case, but it is not an uncommon thing. and lately it has been a question of fact as to whether or not from a defense perspective we say this is pure nonsense, from a prosecution perspective we say this is exactly what their intent was, this is direct evidence of them suggesting it, the jury can make that assessment ultimately. >> let's talk about the charges, joey. because these are really serious. i mean, it is also -- we're talking about, you know, rico charges, racketeering here. so he allegedly rent...

You know just like i know from the defense perspective that you're picking people, and people -- you know, you want to be fair minded in the people you pick. you want them to be impartial. and there are some people who could be african american who may not espouse the same views as african americans. there could be white jurors who are more sympathetic to african americans, et cetera. so you have to evaluate the jury for who they are, not particularly what they look like. that's why we're here in the first place, you can argue. but i do think that the defendants have a lot of explaining to do....

And whether or not they engaged in those activities, nothing related to race. you could make those inferences. this case is all about that. with respect to the composition of the jury, you tried a lot of cases successfully as the stellar prosecutor that you were, and you know just like i know from the defense perspective that you're picking people. and you want to be fair minded in the people you pick. you want them to be impartial. and there are some people who could be african american and may not espouse the same views of african americans. there could be white jurors who are more sympathet...