tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post4281684296167757355..comments2023-10-24T08:00:53.865-05:00Comments on Federal Tax Crimes: Seventh Circuit on Hearsay and Confrontation and on Mid-Trial SummariesJack Townsendhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14469823736335455874noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-3580173713796148942010-08-09T10:40:37.870-05:002010-08-09T10:40:37.870-05:00Jack,
Excellent article!
I have just a few comme...Jack,<br /><br />Excellent article!<br /><br />I have just a few comments:<br /><br />Clients must be disabused of the completely false and absurd notion that their attorney can simply allow objectionable evidence or prosecutorial comments to go unchallenged and then raise the matter on appeal. <br /><br />In my humble opinion, it is unethical (if not an outright perpetration of a fraud on the client and/or the court) for an attorney to allow his or her client to believe that the judge or prosecutor's error can be "invited" and then addressed on appeal. Error must be clearly and specifically raised on the record by way of such procedural tools as objection, proffer, motions including motions to strike, argument and voir dire of witnesses. Anything less than counsel's resort to such exacting, energetic and vigorous defense invites affirmance.<br /><br />I could not agree with you more as to mid-trial summaries, especially in long trials. The trial judge is vested with wide discretion to allow such summaries, which I believe can enable the jury to keep focused on the presentation of evidence.<br /><br />Further, "mini" opening statements should be allowed in order for the jury to track the flow of evidence from one critical (non-cummulative) witness to the next.<br /><br />IN SUM: Trial attorneys and judges must be creative. We must use the rules of evidence and the rules of procedure to simplify trials so as to allow the jury to perform at their peak.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com