I still maintain that Matts statement wasn't very convincing; starting off with lining out all the reasons they should hate the guy, and finishing with "but you can't convict him" just isn't very good strategy. Not when you are talking to people who have every tool to step around the technicality you're pointing out to them, which he is also pointing out to them – THEY have to decide if his actions were beyond the reasonable doubt, so if they're disgusted enough by the litany of sins Matt had provided them earlier, they get to just say "yes".
With multiple bodies, bullet wounds in forheads, a skull smashed with a bowling ball and no scratch on him, I think they could easily declare that. Even before someone points out that the bullets in those forheads don't match any of the bodyguards' guns, so Healy had another one. Even if Matt could argue Healy needed to defend himself, I think in US law there also is the category of "beyond neccessary level of self-defence" and that can definitely apply here. You COULD argue that they would have killed Healy if he had stopped, but... Matt didn't do that.
Anyway. I think the way Matt structured his argument would appeal to a judge, but not to a jury. The judge would feel more compelled by the law than emotion, interested in parsing out what legal dilema was appropriate here, and more loyal to the book than the vibes. The jury though, those are just people. They didn't spend 7 years having it instilled in them to care about "the book" and where the legal perogative ends. They were just presented with a guy, and now get to decide if the crime "Smashed Someone's Skull With A Bowling Ball" was justified enough.
One of the many reasons why I think picking random people as a "jury" is a terrible idea that should never have lived to the 20th century, but, eh. That's a different argument, isn't it.
Thanks for reminding me what Matts speech actually was, anyway! I couldn't remember what his gimmick was. Those are actually sensible laws, only terribly executed for that situation (in my opinion).
And thanks for still answering my rants, I really love talking with you :)
Re: Foggy prepares defence for Matt
I still maintain that Matts statement wasn't very convincing; starting off with lining out all the reasons they should hate the guy, and finishing with "but you can't convict him" just isn't very good strategy. Not when you are talking to people who have every tool to step around the technicality you're pointing out to them, which he is also pointing out to them – THEY have to decide if his actions were beyond the reasonable doubt, so if they're disgusted enough by the litany of sins Matt had provided them earlier, they get to just say "yes".
With multiple bodies, bullet wounds in forheads, a skull smashed with a bowling ball and no scratch on him, I think they could easily declare that. Even before someone points out that the bullets in those forheads don't match any of the bodyguards' guns, so Healy had another one. Even if Matt could argue Healy needed to defend himself, I think in US law there also is the category of "beyond neccessary level of self-defence" and that can definitely apply here. You COULD argue that they would have killed Healy if he had stopped, but... Matt didn't do that.
Anyway. I think the way Matt structured his argument would appeal to a judge, but not to a jury. The judge would feel more compelled by the law than emotion, interested in parsing out what legal dilema was appropriate here, and more loyal to the book than the vibes. The jury though, those are just people. They didn't spend 7 years having it instilled in them to care about "the book" and where the legal perogative ends. They were just presented with a guy, and now get to decide if the crime "Smashed Someone's Skull With A Bowling Ball" was justified enough.
One of the many reasons why I think picking random people as a "jury" is a terrible idea that should never have lived to the 20th century, but, eh. That's a different argument, isn't it.
Thanks for reminding me what Matts speech actually was, anyway! I couldn't remember what his gimmick was. Those are actually sensible laws, only terribly executed for that situation (in my opinion).
And thanks for still answering my rants, I really love talking with you :)