Snipes is in the hands of the jury II

[Doktor Avalanche]

Does anyone know if a transcript of the video exists? I can't hear it very well.

More importantly how can I get a BMW from my refund?

Yeah, that's what I'd like to know too.

[Bill E. Branscum]

Bill - where is the witness testimony that Pope was the guy alleged by the attorney giving the opening statement? Why do you practice selective responding here when you are caught in a lie?

Lie?

I'm confused. If you are going to accuse me of lying, kindly quote it for me.

I am not sure I saqid, or even recalled, whether the jury heard about Pope's alleged credentials from an attorney, or a witness - either way, they heard it.

While it is true that an opening statement is not "evidence," the jury can accord it whatever value they choose to. The fact is, there was ample evidence put before the jury to make it clear that Snipes was represented by, and relying upon, Ray Pope.

[Bill E. Branscum]

The first reference to Pope was in the opening statement to the Jury:

"One of the first ARL attorneys that is rolled out for Mr. Snipes is an attorney named Ray Pope. Mr. Pope has a spectacular pedigree, graduated top of his law class, what we call Order of the Coif, a special designation. He's certified to practice in Federal Court."

"And he also has a personal resume that would give
one confidence. He's a Sunday school teacher and deacon in
his Baptist church."

Bill

So was there any evidence introduced at trial (testimony or documents) that supported those assertions made in "opening arguments"?

Is it true that "Ray" is a "Sunday school teacher and deacon in his Baptist church"? Isn't he incarcerated?

No witness addressed Pope's credentials, although ample evidence was introduced to support the contention that he represented Snipes.

We didn't know what happened to Pope until I read it in a blog post during the trial and verified it on PACER. The representation as to his background and credentials came from his Resume.

[The Observer]

No witness addressed Pope's credentials, although ample evidence was introduced to support the contention that he represented Snipes.

Was evidence submitted to support the contention that Snipes did indeed rely directly on Pope's advice and credentials? If so, is there one example that you would be willing to share?

[iplawyer]

Bill - where is the witness testimony that Pope was the guy alleged by the attorney giving the opening statement? Why do you practice selective responding here when you are caught in a lie?

Lie?

I'm confused. If you are going to accuse me of lying, kindly quote it for me.

I am not sure I saqid, or even recalled, whether the jury heard about Pope's alleged credentials from an attorney, or a witness - either way, they heard it.

While it is true that an opening statement is not "evidence," the jury can accord it whatever value they choose to. The fact is, there was ample evidence put before the jury to make it clear that Snipes was represented by, and relying upon, Ray Pope.

Then show it to us. You have not so far showed us any testimony that verifies Pope's alleged good credentials. You said that there was evidence in front of the jury. Opening arguments are not evidence. You are a lier because there was no evidence in front of the jury to verify his good credentials.

[wserra]

We didn't know what happened to Pope until I read it in a blog post during the trial and verified it on PACER.

I'm sorry, Bill, but my jaw dropped open at this one.

Here's someone who you intend to claim was an unimpeachable source for your client's beliefs - a lawyer, a Sunday school teacher, etc. - and you didn't know until the middle of trial that he was in federal prison? If you truly didn't know that he was a federal felon, didn't you even consider getting in touch with him to sound him out about being a witness? To ask him what happened? The only rational explanation for not doing this is the very knowledge that he is in jail.

Unbelievable.

[Imalawman]

We didn't know what happened to Pope until I read it in a blog post during the trial and verified it on PACER.

I'm sorry, Bill, but my jaw dropped open at this one.

Here's someone who you intend to claim was an unimpeachable source for your client's beliefs - a lawyer, a Sunday school teacher, etc. - and you didn't know until the middle of trial that he was in federal prison? If you truly didn't know that he was a federal felon, didn't you even consider getting in touch with him to sound him out about being a witness? To ask him what happened? The only rational explanation for not doing this is the very knowledge that he is in jail.

Unbelievable.

Yeah, unbelievable. As in, I don't believe that. You address someone in your opening statement as the person that Snipes relied on, (an important person in a trial like this) and yet, you didn't even know he was disbarred and in the clinker?

As Demo said earlier, you really might want to stop posting until the verdict comes back. If its guilty, you could have one unhappy camper for a client.

[Bill E. Branscum]

We didn't know what happened to Pope until I read it in a blog post during the trial and verified it on PACER.

I'm sorry, Bill, but my jaw dropped open at this one.

Here's someone who you intend to claim was an unimpeachable source for your client's beliefs - a lawyer, a Sunday school teacher, etc. - and you didn't know until the middle of trial that he was in federal prison? If you truly didn't know that he was a federal felon, didn't you even consider getting in touch with him to sound him out about being a witness? To ask him what happened? The only rational explanation for not doing this is the very knowledge that he is in jail.

Unbelievable.

Yeah, unbelievable. As in, I don't believe that. You address someone in your opening statement as the person that Snipes relied on, (an important person in a trial like this) and yet, you didn't even know he was disbarred and in the clinker?

As Demo said earlier, you really might want to stop posting until the verdict comes back. If its guilty, you could have one unhappy camper for a client.

Believe it or not, that's the fact.

We never intended to argue that Pope, Baxley, Kahn, Rosile, Malatesta, et al were right . . . all we needed to establish was that Snipes was the client of a person who was a bona fide lawyer at the relevant time.

Our strategy must not have been too bad, considering that we are getting to the end of the third full day of deliberation.

[grixit]

We didn't know what happened to Pope until I read it in a blog post during the trial and verified it on PACER.

I'm sorry, Bill, but my jaw dropped open at this one.

Here's someone who you intend to claim was an unimpeachable source for your client's beliefs - a lawyer, a Sunday school teacher, etc. - and you didn't know until the middle of trial that he was in federal prison? If you truly didn't know that he was a federal felon, didn't you even consider getting in touch with him to sound him out about being a witness? To ask him what happened? The only rational explanation for not doing this is the very knowledge that he is in jail.

Unbelievable.

Isn't this something that happens on tv a lot-- discovering that someone you thought would be an asset to the case is in fact not? And always the lead character relies on their investigators to tell them this, or berates them for not checking things out. But i had always assumed that in real life, everyone gets a background check, nobody's resume is accepted uncritically.

[Bill E. Branscum]

Since yhe notion seems to be a strain on credulity, let me point out that Rosile's lawyer actually demanded to know where Baxley, et. al were in his closing statement - I think that pretty well proves that he didn't know, because he would never have opened the door for rebuttal if he did.

"Where is Milton Baxley, the attorney? Mr. Malatesta, the CPA? Thomas Roberts, the other CPA? We don't know. Why not? Because the government chose not to tell you. Ask yourself why. Why?"

In rebuttal, I expected to hear AUSA O'Neil answer that question - but he didn't.

[Judge Roy Bean]

This defies more than just logic. It begs for consideration that Snipes will claim his counsel was incompetent in representing him at trial.

[Investor]

This defies more than just logic. It begs for consideration that Snipes will claim his counsel was incompetent in representing him at trial.

Even though the jury never heard a derogatory word about Pope? How did this jeopardize his case, in any way?

[The Observer]

The only rational explanation for not doing this is the very knowledge that he is in jail.

Unbelievable.

There is another rational explanation - that the defense team had some extensive moments of incompetence and malpractice.

Either way, the result is the same - bad.

[The Observer]

Since yhe notion seems to be a strain on credulity, let me point out that Rosile's lawyer actually demanded to know where Baxley, et. al were in his closing statement - I think that pretty well proves that he didn't know, because he would never have opened the door for rebuttal if he did.

"Where is Milton Baxley, the attorney? Mr. Malatesta, the CPA? Thomas Roberts, the other CPA? We don't know. Why not? Because the government chose not to tell you. Ask yourself why. Why?"

That only makes me wonder if Rosile's lawyer was equally incompetent- he needs the AUSA to tell him where all those people are? He can't do some basic digging and find them? Strange how everyone here at Quatloos knows where these characters are at any given time. Good gravy, Demo usually pinpoints these perps within 5 minutes of someone asking - and that is when she still asleep at the keyboard.

[wserra]

Even though the jury never heard a derogatory word about Pope? How did this jeopardize his case, in any way?

Agreed. The problem here is that the forum is only getting snippets of what happened at trial. From those snippets, however, were I prosecuting and heard that defense opening, I surely would have sought to show the jury that yet another of Snipes' paragons of virtue was in federal prison. Maybe it gets in, maybe it doesn't (since Snipes didn't actually consult him in jail), probably depending on the circumstances and timing of his crimes.

If the defense didn't know this readily-discernable fact, and that ignorance had actually allowed the govt to open up with both barrels, would that "jeopardize his case"?

[Prof]

If I were trying to raise the defense of advice of competent counsel or at least reliance on a person who appeared to all outward and objective criteria to be competent, I might not want to know what had happened to that person AFTER he was presented to Defendant as a competent advisor.

What happened AFTER the fact is probably not relevant to this sort of defense and counsel can press a lot harder if he or she is "innocent."

By the way, Wes, I think -- as you said -- we should just wait for the jury before we criticize the defense or the jury or the Judge or the prosecution.

And, I am a little sympathetic with Bill -- it is hard to disengage and step back, especially with the jury out.

[Joey Smith]

And, I am a little sympathetic with Bill -- it is hard to disengage and step back, especially with the jury out.

Yep, anybody who has ever tried a case knows that the period during jury deliberations is "anxious" magnified a thousandfold.

[wserra]

If I were trying to raise the defense of advice of competent counsel or at least reliance on a person who appeared to all outward and objective criteria to be competent, I might not want to know what had happened to that person AFTER he was presented to Defendant as a competent advisor.

Sorry, Prof, but I have been practicing 31 years - the entire time as a litigator (I teach at the law school and post-law-school level for CLE credit) - and not once in my career have I "not wanted to know". The phrase "willful blindness" was invented for that situation, and rarely leaves a practitioner in an enviable position.

By the way, Wes, I think -- as you said -- we should just wait for the jury before we criticize the defense or the jury or the Judge or the prosecution.

Agreed. That was my original intention, and I got carried away.

And, I am a little sympathetic with Bill -- it is hard to disengage and step back, especially with the jury out.

Yep, anybody who has ever tried a case knows that the period during jury deliberations is "anxious" magnified a thousandfold.

And therefore not a good time to be posting on Internet bulletin boards.

[Bill E. Branscum]

The verdict is in.

The jury convicted on three MISDEMEANOR failure to file counts and acquitted on the rest.

[Doktor Avalanche]

The verdict is in.

The jury convicted on three MISDEMEANOR failure to file counts and acquitted on the rest.

Congratulations.