Karak i thought u were in law school and you still don't know how this works?

i graduated from law school and not really. it's hard for anyone to commentate on this case beyond the plainly obvious.

crim law isn't taught very heavily in school (it's not even a required class at georgetown), and law school doesn't teach you jack **** about how to actually practice law. you should see some of the discussion on this in the law school thread sometime.

plus crim law operates primarily on state laws and is very specific to each jurisdiction. granted i know more about PA than just about any other state except VA, but still, it's a vast field.

altho my grasp on evidence is probably ok, those issues are impossible to judge from afar... just like many of the other issues in the case. all we can do is speculate, and im going to hedge pretty hard every time i say anything because SE can be quite vicious. certainly learned my lesson there.

I know much less about the law than you....but why would the interview be inadmissible in the first place?

EDIT: Not putting you on the spot or anything....just curious based on my legal training from Law and Order U

Ic, i mean obv i dont know **** about law but i was just sayin

At least the Jusge didn't grant the motion to dismiss all charges.

im not saying it's definitely inadmissible, but it would be a lot easier if he was on the stand. that was probably a poor example. i hadnt thought too much about it.

but since it's a public statement made by the defendant, possibly a statement against interest, etc. etc. etc. many other hearsay exceptions...

i'd say it's not looking good if sandusky absolutely wanted to keep it out. one of the many reasons why doing that interview was just a trainwreck of strategy by him and his attorney (in the eyes of many outside commenters).

He clearly prefers the long con.

I personally am looking forward to the use if the "Chewbacca defense" in this trial. It is that kind of circus.

I'm probably going to want to smack myself in the head with a shovel for taking this bait, but what is "the Chewbacka defense"?

It's from a South Park episode in which Johnnie Cochran's defense of O.J. Simpson was satirized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense

If I were Sandusky's lawyers my strategy would be to say there is TOO MUCH evidence, it's way too suspicious how much damning evidence there is, it's gotta be a conspiracy because there's just no way that much evidence could exist.

5:30 AM, someone walks up to you outside Beaver Stadium and says "we're Framin' Sandusky, you in?"