Comments on: Scruggs moves to reconsider anonymous jury issue

By: lotus

lotus — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:28:06 +0000

I am of that age group that has had to really struggle to learn what I know about it, so I sympathize with them on that.

Oh lord, me too. Poor riddenword can attest to my struggle (which often becomes his. His patience with my techno-backwardness is remarkable).

By: observer

observer — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:16:27 +0000

And, Seacrest has another good point. I have only run into one type of lawyer who really understands how the internet works, and that has generally been criminal defense attorneys who have represented defendants in child porn internet cases. Otherwise, there just isn’t a lot of reason for an attorney to go to the trouble to really understand how it works.

I am of that age group that has had to really struggle to learn what I know about it, so I sympathize with them on that.

By: lotus

lotus — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:13:54 +0000

Amens, y’all just above.

ccvz, welcome to folo, where my impression is that we’re a hung jury on the question you pose. (Heck, I all by myself am a hung jury on that one.)

By: observer

observer — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:44:22 +0000

I think ThirdSouth, Supergreg, and Seacrest are all on the same page as me.

I have a very good friend who is a doctor who insists that the absolute worst patient to have is another doctor, to the point he avoids having one at all costs.

This motion makes me think the same is true with lawyers.

By: Seacrest

Seacrest — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 05:27:33 +0000

This motion violates a cardinal rule: never file anything simply to appease your client.

Oh exactly. Do you think this stems from the clients who are used to being in charge are trying to be in charge?

I’ve looked at all Scrugg’s council as castrated figure heads. (even Keker) I think any lawyer who represents a person like Scruggs is. It must be hugely frustrating.

By: supergreg

supergreg — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 03:59:48 +0000

Thirdsouth…praise be!

By: ThirdSouth

ThirdSouth — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 03:26:05 +0000

This motion violates a cardinal rule: never file anything simply to appease your client. Take your client into your office to do high-fives, or to cuss the judge, or to cuss folo and the other blogs — all in the privacy of your office — but don’t file laughable sh*t before a judge who will ultimately decide as many contested issues as the jury (including whether to set aside the jury’s verdict), just to make your client feel better about a miserable chain of events. It relegates the serious motions you may have to file later to the dustbin.

By: ccvz

ccvz — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 02:19:36 +0000

I’ve posted here maybe once…I am a Y’all Politics regular and check this blog everyday…so I’m somewhat familiar with the bloggers/posts/subject matter on FOLO. Great site!
Is the popular opinion here that Scruggs will not go to trial? (Or not?)

By: Seacrest

Seacrest — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:53:41 +0000

and the writer should have known better. Talk about blowing smoke.

I think that’s the problem. The writer obviously doesn’t know any better. Even big fancy lawyers are woefully ignorant of the “internets” and the “blogs”.

I’m going to take a not so wild guess that Judge Biggers isn’t a big blog reader and the word “folo” isn’t on his radar screen (no offense Lotus!). If he’s not familiar I doubt he’s going to be impressed that in a world population of roughly 6,602,224,175, possibly 20 or so some odd thousand people looked a Folo blog and that equates a tainted jury pool.

By: supergreg

supergreg — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:33:22 +0000

The motion seems to be a little bit too disrespectful to the Judge’s ruling (remember he is ruling on this motion) and a little insulting. There are ways to get your point across and raise issues for appeal without getting ugly.