>And, by your descriptions/discussion, it appears that lawyers who can smother their opponents in a flood of linquistic confusions can create confusion in the minds or jurists an jurors. I.E., Johnny Cochran, for example? Or John Peterson? :)
<<

Jerry..


A few points. First, my last name is spelled with EN, not ON. Therefore, if you are going to take a shot; which I can take by the way, you should have the courtesy to spell my name correctly... < s >..

Second, I don't think anything I say could ever be considered ambiguous or confusing. You know where I stand on an issue. As far as breeding confusion, I don't think one could levy that charge against me with merit..

Third, why is it that when somebody presents another side of an argument, it is taken as breeding confusion? Is that not the very essence of the adversarial system in the USA? Jurors are the trier of fact. It is up to the lawyers to present arguments backed up by evidence. It is up to a judge to manage the process and ensure the rules of procedure, evidence, etc are followed. Finally, it is up to the jury to pay attention to what is going on. And, it is up to the lawyers to keep the interest of the jury. It is a performance of sorts.