reasonable minds can differ. There is no objective "right answer" here. It is an interesting discussion/debate.

Get one of the victims to cross examen her

What that has to do with this discussion I'm not quite sure.

You think the risk of acquittal is greater because they didn't make the wife cry?

I'm not saying she needs to break down on the stand.

You have her on the stand, under oath, and she is lying. There are a variety of ways to use that situation to your advantage. Maybe you just put her up there and get her to lie as comprehensively as possible. Then in closing you say "oh and by the way, let's discuss Dottie Sandusky's extraordinary testimony. . ."

Maybe you are just quicker on your feet than her - you really should be - and manage to demonstrate that her memories of this stuff are at best screwed up.

Maybe she does start crying when you ask extremely difficult questions about bloody underwear and which bed the boys slept in on the bowl game trips.

At the moment, as far as I can tell, this old woman married to the defendant has testified that it's not possible he did those things in the house. That's a portion of the pie chart of guilt that's now up in the air. That's not something you can rest with.

Sure i have, when the circumstances dictated that it was necessary and there was something to be achieved by doing it.

lol at lawyer page, he's talking about a joke re: the Martindale directory

probably more hits because I'm in LA, there's nothing big deal about me, I'm just a dude

We put our pants on one leg at a time like errbody else. I knew it was a joke.

there's an underlying objecitivity to everything.

this can't be proven but i strongly suspect that hoya's methodology is much more likely to win over a skeptical idiot juror than alienate an already won over idiot juror (sample size: the entire population eligible for jury duty). if this is the case, that means that he's "right" regarding the issue.

Chance of a verdict being reached today?

I would guess too many counts to consider in deliberations to be done today.

If they come back today, it is pretty much a lock that he is found guilty of most counts and they were just able to breeze through most of them.

Of course, if this jury is willing to convict Sandusky, then they are fools to think his wife wasn't involved and she is somehow innocent. Anyone who thinks he is a monster must by default think she enabled a monster.

It's almost the same analysis as Paterno, except perhaps Paterno wasn't upstairs when rapes were going on (wouldn't surprise me if he was, though).

Where do you work and what type of litigation do you do?

the state has more victims ready for round 2 if he is acquitted

arguably unethical but wtf who cares in this case

He was watching via skype

Where is this "lawyer" page? (I don't do Twitter or Facebook.) Is the lawyer page one of the forums/sub forums somewhere here on 2+2?

No no he's talking about the Martindale Hubble online directory of practicing attorneys. It generates these profile pages - as far as I know I'm not even a subscriber to or member of that database except that they know I exist (?) - and they register how many hits you receive. Apparently I'm like 17,000th out of some huge number of attorneys, placing me in like the top 1% of hits.

I can think of a couple of reasons for this, but none of them have to do with my abilities, professionalism, success, etc.

www.martindale.com

it's that valuable GULC degree man

nah man it's that most of those pages get no hits to begin with and the ones that do get them from google hits

I happen to be involved in some things that result in my name being published in various media outlets, has to be that (THIS IS NOT A BRAG, it's just part of the territory).

Come on at least lie and give me some hope :-P

Karak:

That's a very good point. I suspect that is another reason why the prosecutor didn't go into "attack mode" during cross examination of Dottie Sandusky. Especially regarding that trip to the Alamo Bowl in 1999, (where she walked in to the hotel room and claims that she asked "What's going on here?" but then said that she "saw nothing"), the prosecution treaded that line very carefully. They asked the witness just enough to let the jury know (or "plant the seed" as CP put it) that Dottie Sandusky just might not be telling the truth. In this particular situation, that was all that was required - it was more than enough.

In many respects this trial has been like a good poker game - lots of nuance and subtlety combined with efforts (by both sides) to trip the other side up. Never more so than in the way witnesses have been dealt with, this trial does have many similarities to the thrust and parry of a poker game.

I'm not saying it hurts.

Grind it out yo, that's the job. If you want to chat about career stuff feel free to PM me.

Court TV has a clock running which shows how long the jury has been deliberating. It's getting close to 12 hours of elapsed deliberation time. I have predicted/guesstimated that the jury will deliberate for 16 hours. If my crystal ball isn't cloudy, we might get a verdict later today.

I say 17.

I just see it as, in the jury room:

*I believe and trust Dottie Sandusky.

Is an 'valid' opinion for someone to hold in terms of deciding if he is guilty or not guilty. whereas

*I don't like the mean prosecutor.

Is not.

For the life of me I am just not seeing how someone is getting talked out of 'Jerry did it' by a lawyer making his wife cry. I mean it sounds like she'd only be the 20th person to cry in this courtroom. On the other hand I am totally seeing how someone could find her credible given that her version of what happened basically went uncontested at the time. It just doesn't take much to sell a conspiracy theory in this country.

Not nearly as big of a head-scratcher as endeavoring to keep Sandusky off the stand, however. That one is just horrible given the upside and high chance of success.

This is incredible - 10,000 posts (and replies) in this thread - and still going. (I'm sure myself, Riverman, and Karak each individually account for one percent of the volume.) I imagine the only threads on 2+2 with more posts and replies are the "Full Tilt Poker Stole My Money and I'm P'd Off" thread and the "Internet Poker Is Rigged" thread.