No, but that line of questioning wasn’t part of voir dire so there was no reason to assume ‘common sense’ would include the habits of avid runners. I go back to the FACT that voir dire was so problematic for its emphasis on striking non-white jurors that the judge saw fit to record it. This was intentionally provocative along racial lines and had no evidentiary basis. Any attorney doing this is *personally* weak. JMHO. She will be fortunate if there are no formal complaints.

I substitute Lyle’s golden syrup. Tastes soooo much better!! Like a UK treacle tart. ☺️

If you can’t think of a reason (and you want to excuse the comments), and there was zero evidence at trial that would provide an evidentiary reason/excuse, we’re left with bad faith and weak character. It was legal. It was still pathetic and sad and an indication of personal immorality. I can argue the flip side with the best of ‘em and this was just weak and sad. I would never compromise my integrity on such a thin basis.

Are they runners? Rural Georgians running the streets. Was running part of voir dire? C’mon. You know this was a bogus statement and aimed at trying to animate racism in the jury. It was just too blatant to get any takers.

BS. There was no evidence introduced at trial to say how a runner would care for his/her feet. The statement in closing had no evidentiary basis at all.

There are no non-racist reasons to discuss his toenails in this case. There was no DNA evidence there. There are plenty of reasons to zealously advocate for your clients but the victims’ toenails had nothing to do with the law or the defendants’ behavior in this case.

This is helpful, thank you. I understand that the sentiment exists. Your initial phrasing made it sound like this was *your* perspective.

I understand that. This case just isn’t a good example of that at all. The statement she made in closing was egregious and beyond the pale and, I think, backfired spectacularly. Fortunately, she wasn’t the one making absurd post-conviction comments. It didn’t seem to roll easily off her tongue but it was absolutely deliberate and gross.

That case had nothing to do with smearing the victim but not breaking attorney client privilege.

Do you hear yourself? Thanksgiving is “THEIR HOLIDAY”? Meaning white people. “DOUBLE DOWN IF THEY THINK THEY ARE BEING TREATED UNFAIRLY”? Because they (non-white people) should really just…? Shut up and be quiet?

I just want to highlight the attorneys’ post verdict comments too. Things like Sheffield saying it was a “very disappointing and sad verdict” for his legal team. Say what now? Disappointing/sad?! Or,“We’re glad they wanted to look at the video because we felt from day one that the video showed that Travis McMichael acted in self-defense,” Rubin said. A vigorous defense does not require this kind of post-verdict commentary. ‘No comment’ or ‘an appeal is planned’ would suffice if your personal ethics disallow/prevented racial animus claims.

Smelly soaps, lotions, perfumes, bath salts.

No. They perhaps made the jury MORE hostile to their clients tho. Not a win.

It’s an important one. Sure. I just don’t think a) it was good strategy and b) it was in keeping with my personal ethics. At the end of the day, the jury dealt them a complete repudiation. They may need to rethink those kinds of blatant appeals going forward.

No one said they broke the law. They were a gross violation of my personal ethics. The conduct of the attorneys during voir dire was so egregious that the judge noted it for the record. Progress would be the judge invalidating their race-based use of peremptory challenges as SCOTUS gave him the ability to do.

But the laws *HAVE* changed. These attorneys have not. Further, dirty toenails are no indication of criminality, aggression, or seeking confrontation.

It’s no different than comparing him to a filthy beast who lacks the common sense and decency to wear socks with shoes. Plausible deniability does not render something ethical. It was tacky and gross. Personally, I think the blatant nature of the appeals backfired. They’d have been better off with much more subtle appeals.

Sometimes but not necessarily. Where this stuff is concerned, they are not in conflict. It’s no different from commenting on the length of a rape victims’ skirt or the slant of her eyes. A vigorous and competent defense does not require that.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

My *personal* ethics would not allow me to impugn the character of a dead man based on immutable characteristics unrelated to the crime. *They* did that, not just her. I’d argue the hell out of their defense… -They saw him running from the scene of known crimes. - They believed they recognized him from the description of other residents. I would not sell my soul for a buck. I watched a lot of the trial. Did she highlight his dirty toenails (dried blood?) in the autopsy photos? No.

Poker. Cards and chips. With that I can teach my oldest to play spades too (she desperately needs to learn before she graduates!!).

Nice! I made classic bourbon pecan for DH and salted caramel pretzel for DS. They are the sweet fiends in my house. I don’t expect leftovers but I won’t be eating any either. 🤣

I’m just gonna put this out there… I, personally, have ZERO issues with addressing class-based inequality. I am all for helping people who have less than me regardless of color or ethnicity. What I do not support, and will never support, is class-based policies that do not take into account, for example, the fact that many first gen. college students, particularly those at HBCUs have disproportionately high loan burdens b/c their families lack capital. The reasons for that also relate to family financial resources and knowledge capital. They’re not separate issues.

Uh, OP has started umpty million threads about CRT and can only cite a handful of anecdotes, which we all have, while conveniently running away from any form of problem solving other than bans. Material reality is that hundreds of thousands of kids are being denied access to real history because of anti-CRT anecdotes. There is no similar National legislative push to mandate privilege walks.

A privilege walk does just about as much good as banning books. One can be corrected through human interaction and discussion. The other prohibits any dialogue at all. These aren’t equal events with similar outcomes. What Pam described so well is that radicalization into whiteness is already part of/baked into American life. The only people who routinely have been blind to it are …white. That’s not a new phenomenon. What people are fighting against with anti-CRT laws is ever having to become aware of what’s been baked into the cake.