Snipes trial (Continued)

Agent Observer · Post by **Agent Observer** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 1:14 pm

Nope. I'm the one and only. I don't need to stinkin' doubles, although I'd rather have Agent Observer's pic on the back of my book.

Hah! You're much too "popular" already. Your "fans" would see through it in a heartbeat, but I'll get my publicist and my agent to talk to your people and maybe we can come to an agreement for a small, 7 figure deal. After all, anything less than 8 figures for either of us is mere chump change!

Post by **Demosthenes** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 1:42 pm

Jury was brought in at 9:05 this morning. The defense rested at 9:06.

Post by **webhick** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 1:49 pm

Demosthenes wrote:Jury was brought in at 9:05 this morning. The defense rested at 9:06.

Wait, didn't the government just rest last Friday?

Post by **Famspear** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 1:52 pm

Demo wrote:

Jury was brought in at 9:05 this morning. The defense rested at 9:06.

Mon Dieu! Je crois que M. Snipes siffle passé le cimetière, et il espère pour le plus meilleur!

Post by **Famspear** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 1:54 pm

On the other hand, who knows for sure what a jury will do.

Post by **Demosthenes** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:06 pm

The government rested Friday afternoon, and the defense rested this morning - not witnesses, no testimony.

It's a big poker bluff that paid off when they tried it in the Banister case, but the DOJ's Banister case was a hell of a lot weaker than this case.

I predict a Galileo closing painting Snipes as a persecuted man, "He was just asking questions..." Yada yada.

Post by **Famspear** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:19 pm

Demo, based on what you've seen, if you have the time later, how would you rate the job that the attorneys on both sides did?

Post by **Famspear** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:37 pm

Above, I wrote:

Demo, based on what you've seen, if you have the time later, how would you rate the job that the attorneys on both sides did?

Or, I should say, "how have the attorneys done so far?". We still have closing arguments coming.

Imalawman · Post by **Imalawman** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 3:11 pm

Famspear wrote:Demo wrote:

Jury was brought in at 9:05 this morning. The defense rested at 9:06.
Mon Dieu! Je crois que M. Snipes siffle passé le cimetière, et il espère pour le plus meilleur!

[nitpick] shouldn't it be something like "plus loin que", "le long du coté", "au delà de" or maybe just "prés de"? I think that passé is an action term meaning to pass something as in throw, not a term of proximity or direction. Also, maybe "mais", instead of "et"? I've never said this phrase in French or seen it written, so I'm not sure.[/nitpick]

Post by **Famspear** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 3:22 pm

Imalawman wrote:

shouldn't it be something like "plus loin que", "le long du coté", "au delà de" or maybe just "prés de"? I think that passé is an action term meaning to pass something as in throw, not a term of proximity or direction. Also, maybe "mais", instead of "et"? I've never said this phrase in French or seen it written, so I'm not sure.

C'est possible. Je ne suis pas sûr. J'apprends français il y a 38 ans -- l'école. Mes ancêtres étaient français, mais mon français est faible.

BBFlatt · Post by **BBFlatt** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:24 pm

Does anyone have an idea what kind of fee Bernhoft gets for NOT putting on a defense? High 6 figures, seven maybe?

I wonder how much you'd have to pay him to actually, you know, present some evidence in his client's behalf.

Post by **Joey Smith** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:08 pm

CaptainKickback wrote:I wonder something. If WS is found guilty and the appeal is filed, could WS hire a new attorney who would ask for a new trial because of inadequate defense/counsel at the initial trial?

Just a question

Sure, and that might work for an indigent defendant but not for a high-profile wealthy defendant who hired the attorneys of his choice.

Bud Dickman · Post by **Bud Dickman** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 6:56 pm

......"We chose not to call witnesses because there was no need to. The government prosecutors have put on a case that simply does not come close to meeting the standard of its burden of proof," Snipes' attorney Daniel Meachum said in a statement.

The trial, which had been expected to last a month, opened Jan. 14. The prosecution rested Friday.

"It was obvious after we went over the evidence the government presented that we could move on to closing arguments immediately and get a just acquittal for Wesley on all counts listed in the indictment," Meachum said.......

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gR52 ... wD8UF267O0

Doktor Avalanche · Post by **Doktor Avalanche** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 7:12 pm

......"We chose not to call witnesses because there was no need to. The government prosecutors have put on a case that simply does not come close to meeting the standard of its burden of proof,"

Translation:

We're screwed and we know it.

Disilloosianed · Post by **Disilloosianed** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 7:58 pm

"We could have called a bunch of Hollywood stars," said Bernhoft, a Milwaukee, Wis., lawyer who specializes in tax cases. "We could have put on a big show, but we don't do that. We're not going to waste the jury's time."

Translation: We're screwed and the jury knows it.

But darn it, I was really looking forward to Goldie Hawn's testimony on taxation.

Post by **LPC** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:26 pm

Demosthenes wrote:I predict a Galileo closing painting Snipes as a persecuted man, "He was just asking questions..." Yada yada.

A persecuted man who did not have a Florida residence.

Post by **Demosthenes** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:25 am

Galileo didn't have a Florida residence. More than coincidence?

Post by **grixit** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 2:25 am

"Corrupt Justice: the Persecution of Wesley Snipes", starring:

Isaiah Washington as Wesley Snipes

Hulk Hogan as Eddie Kahn

Sylvester Sallone as the ghost of Gallileo

...

Post by **Famspear** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 5:56 pm

Here's a link to a news report from the scene at the court house, from a TV station, complete with a few brief words of confidence from Wesley Snipes

http://www.wftv.com/video/15165168/index.html

Bud Dickman · Post by **Bud Dickman** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 6:40 pm

Snipes trial offers IRS perfect script

Morris said Tuesday in closing arguments. "And it's the law, and that's what this case is about. It's about three men who felt they were above the law."
Defense attorney Robert Barnes conceded Snipes' arguments may have been crazy, but insisted that didn't make them criminal.

"Disagreement with the IRS is not fraud of the IRS, is not deception," Barnes said. "It was an attempt to engage the IRS, to go through the IRS procedures and processes and see who's right."

http://www.mercurynews.com/nationworld/ci_8109841