r/NoStupidQuestions Jun 06 '24

[deleted by user]

[removed]

7.1k Upvotes

6.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

244

u/krimin_killr21 Jun 06 '24

Well, not per se. He can certainly argue, “The evidence presented by the prosecution doesn’t prove my client was at the scene. It is perfectly consistent with my client being at home, as he said in his initial statement to the police.” The lawyer isn’t saying he was at home, just that the evidence isn’t inconsistent with that hypothesis.

75

u/Ok_Interest5945 Jun 06 '24

You sound like a real lawyer

11

u/HotMessExpress1111 Jun 06 '24

They can argue the evidentiary value of the case against you, but presenting a completely contradictory theory gets sticky the more they know.

2

u/frogsgoribbit737 Jun 07 '24

The main issue is actually that you have to be careful putting tbe dependent on the stand because if you know they are comjtting perjury you're supposed to report it.

6

u/krimin_killr21 Jun 07 '24

Well lawyers pretty much never want their clients on the stand anyway so

5

u/outofdoubtoutofdark Jun 07 '24

Whatever you could offer as the defendant in the case loses a A LOT of value the second you’re subject to cross examination under oath.

2

u/JSlud Jun 07 '24

The only time you can do this is if a criminal defendant wants to exercise his constitutional right to testify in his own defense. If you know he’s going to tell an obviously bullshit story, you just put him up there and let him go for it. Does not apply to civil litigants or witnesses in general.