Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

fbtcu1998 t1_it3r4jj wrote

The judge deserves a medal for her patience. I think she feared he was just trying to delay everything by getting a contempt charge and removing him as his own counsel and she wouldn't do it. For anyone who hast followed the trial, It's worth taking a look at his antics to see how out of control he's been

172

MonsieurGideon t1_it3rhvy wrote

She has been a shining example of how a judge should act in the face of an out of control defendant.

She stroked his ego early on and let him think he was on their level, and now he has realized how absolutely put of his league he is and the amount of evidence against him.

All his tactics to get a mistrial or appeal later have been handled perfectly by the judge and prosecutors.

125

fancyFriday t1_it5vkcf wrote

Her statement when she let him represent himself was incredibly thorough and made it (in my opinion) far less likely anyone will entertain the idea of a mistrial based upon him representing himself. It was actually comical to watch it happen because that clown wouldn't stop objecting to anything he thought that he was needing to disagree with.

16

Mattbird t1_it40rtz wrote

Between this, the Jones case, and a trial I did jury duty for, I've learned that the legal system will give you absolutely every opportunity to get your own message out and speak whatever you like, however you want to be defended. It will bend over backwards to accommodate lunatics and the deluded. It's really given me a lot of hope.

46

MississippiJoel t1_it4jp6b wrote

That's sort of the rule of thumb of how any trial should go: let the defense make up most of the rules (within reason), and then when it tries to appeal later, just point to where either both parties agreed to a rule, or where the trial judge let the defense make the rule to begin with, and then say "so, what's the problem exactly?"

21

MeyhamM2 t1_it4zmrh wrote

Not always, but when it’s going right, yes.

6