Quote:
Originally Posted by justinsain
It was stated by one of the commentators that the attorneys have immunity in whatever they say during the trial and cannot be held accountable in the way you mean. This was brought up because during the opening statements Baez said that Casey learned to lie because as a girl she would have to go to school right after having her father's penis in her mouth.
Until Casey goes on the stand and testifies to that fact, it remains completely unsubstantiated and certainly destroyed George's reputation which one would think would be reason to go after Baez but he is immune.
|
In the example that you bring up the point makes perfect sense. He (Baez) made those statements BUT when he got the father on the stand he asked him those questions and let the guy at least answer to those statements made earlier.
But as I said in my post, the lawyer made all sorts of statements about Krunk, said in such a way as they weren't his opinion, but rather he was speaking in absolute terms, then when he had Krunk on the stand he DID NOT ASK HIM ANY QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THOSE ACCUSATIONS. Sorry, that is just plain wrong in my view.
And of course they're going to try to protect their asses with their convenient little "disclaimers" that they can't be held accountable etc early on in any trial. That doesn't make it right. Personally I'd tell them to shove their disclaimer up their asses if they said a bunch of made-up crap about me, and get a lawyer on them anyway. Civil courts, especially in the USA I've noticed, have a funny way of deciding for themselves what is and isn't actionable.