type of time line, but obviously perhaps buttoning up the investigation, is that what we re thinking? that s the hope. the problem is there was a legal dispute over the ability to compel testimony from the president or a grand jury, that s another 12 to 18 months because there would be various levels of appeal up to the supreme court. the other alternative the special council could just write the report, talking to the president, and could say here s what i found, here s what other people said and the president declined the opportunity to confront what other people said. mueller would have a decision if the president didn t testify. the president would have a decision whether to fight all the way up. because even to get a ruling from the supreme court, do you want this hanging over his head for another 12 to 18 months? elizabeth: never a dull moment. thank you so much for joining us. i know we ll have you back because it s not going anywhere any time soon. thank you so much. leland
guilty. it just means he might be a very good liar. but not putting your guy on the stand, especially in a case where he can get life in prison, means the defendant is the most powerful possible witness against the defendant. and that s why you keep him off the stand. lawyers know the jury instructions will order the jury to not consider the fact that the defendant didn t testify, but they know, the lawyers know that in a normal case jurors will hold it against the defendant. they will correctly in most cases interpret the defendant s silence in the courtroom as an indicator of guilt. that s why the most impressive win criminal defense lawyers can ever get is when they get a not guilty for a guy who is so guilty he can t even testify in his own defense. lawyers who win controversial cases always tell us we must
means the defendant is the most powerful possible witness against the defendant. and that s why you keep him off the stand. lawyers know the jury instructions will order the jury to not consider the fact that the defendant didn t testify, but they know, the lawyers know that in a normal case jurors will hold it against the defendant. they will correctly in most cases interpret the defendant s silence in the courtroom as an indicator of guilt. that s why the most impressive win criminal defense lawyers can ever get is when they get a not guilty for a guy who is so guilty he can t even testify in his own defense. lawyers who win controversial cases always tell us we must accept the controversial verdicts. but they re lying. lawyers appeal jury verdicts themselves all the time specifically because they themselves do not accept
stereotypes that are put on them every day. all of the judgments, all of the sort of blockage that they have in their lives trying to just live in america. ruben, why do you think that this case is so emotional? because it plays into an existing narrative that a lot of people have that the criminal justice system opportunity work for african-americans. and that when african-americans step into a courtroom, more times than not throughout our history, it has not gone well. justice has not been served. the problem, i think, in this case is nobody knows what happened that particular night in sanford, florida, on february 26th of last year. other than one person who s gone, one person who didn t testify in his own trial. and we have also the peculiar nature of the florida law, the stand your ground law. these seem to be very specific things. my problem is when we take this and make it global, it suddenly becomes about the contempt that people have for african-american men in particular
and was backing up and george zimmerman shot him. you have, i think, been so honest with your convictions as a legal analyst, as an attorney, as someone who is concerned about this case here. when you hear this back and forth with the prosecution, are they just licking their wounds here? well, as someone who watched every minute of the trial and few people did. a lot of people watched and chimed in. you watched every minute. right. it was tuesday morning and wednesday morning and thursday morning quarterbacking. i would have loved if the prosecutors would have argued this theory of the case to the jury in closing argument, which would have been the appropriate time. you know, it s really surprising to me to hear some of this afterwards. and to say that they lost the trial because george zimmerman didn t testify, well, that was to be completely expected. if there s one thing all the legal pundits agreed to before this trial began, it was that it was extremely unlikely that geo