['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Depends on the field, the situation and who's doing the teaching.

But the short answer is to whatever extent allowed by law (and the cannons of professional responsibility). I think Cochran's close was acceptable. Scorched earth, yes, but as near as I can tell, nothing illegal, unethical or improper.

Now if you look at Jose Baez's close in the Casey Anthony trial, it should have been grounds for prosecutors to request an immediate mis-trial and have the whole thing re-tried. Baez introduced facts and theories that had not been introduced as evidence; it was wholly inappropriate. Baez should've been sanctioned for that particular bit of horseshit. Cochran didn't do that, he just threw out a bunch of static and the jury failed to see through it.

The best theory I've ever found for defending parties you're almost certain are guilty has nothing to do with the defendant but rather the system in general. As an adversarial system, is it absolutely imperative that each side receive the best, most complete defense possible. Guilty or not, our adversarial system operates at its highest only when all sides are being equally represented.

If you are a defense attorney, you feel its your duty to the system to present your client with the absolute strongest defense possible. Because if you've done that, you've ensured that you have done everything in your power to ensure that the system runs at full stroke.

Thanks.

The part that I wonder about is what is the "strongest defense possible"? Obviously, you don't want the state colluding with the defense, but, in Cochran's case, is invoking the Holocaust and directly comparing Fuhrman to Hitler during his close the responsibility of the jurors to see through? Can the prosecution object to bullshit like that presented during a close? Can the judge censure him?