Good interview, Mr. Lat. Mr. Agnifilo spins a good story, and does his very best job of both commending the jury for not convicting on the more serious charges and attacking them for convicting on the lesser charges. They're unfair, except when they're fair, and they follow the evidence when it leads to an acquittal, but ignore it when it leads to a conviction.
He has to embrace this schizoid position to continue his representation — AND EVERY ONE OF YOUR READERS SHOULD UNDERSTAND that that's what he's doing in this interview: Representing a client still in custody and in jeopardy. It would be sadly naive to expect him to stop acting like an advocate and to act instead like a thoughtful, honest, and open source of disinterested facts.
The real reason they didn't put his client on the stand was that they thought the jury would think worse of him, and better of the prosecution's case. He can talk about the other witness who made his client's testimony unnecessary, but that is utter bullsh!t, and I guarantee you that no one on the jury would agree with Agnifilo now that the defendant was an irrelevant witness. He was a defending hiding behind his Fifth Amendment privilege, and while the jury can't draw negative inferences from that (unless they violate their sworn duty to follow court instructions), we observers outside the courtroom are under no such compulsion.
The prosecutors probably aren't doing interviews with the press, but it would be interesting to see a qualified proxy steel-man their counterarguments to everything Mr. Agnifilo said. Here, in this format, Mr. Agnifilo had the great privilege of being sure no one on the spot could reply to and rebut anything he claimed; in court, where he did less well (multiple felony convictions aren't winning the Stanley Cup! What horsesh!t!), he didn't have that privilege.
PS: The "how was he to know it was illegal, when he sees prostitution rings operating without interference?"-argument is particularly offensive, and misrepresents the kind of intention required to meet the charged crimes' specific intent requirement. But he couldn't resist making it here because he doesn't have anything better.
In this highlights post, I didn’t print my questions. As you’ll see when I post the full episode, I did push back and press him on a number of things. (That said, I’m not an expert on this case, so I’m sure someone could have done a much better job than I did as devil’s advocate.)
In Marc’s defense, I will say—having read and listened to a lot of the commentary—this can be fairly characterized as a big defense win. And it was generally received as such by folks closely following the case (including people who hate Combs and were sad, angry, or both about the verdict).
Of course, a lot depends on sentencing. People calling this a defense win are assuming a reasonable sentence. If Combs gets hit hard at sentencing, that changes things (although recall that had he gotten convicted on the counts he was acquitted on, he could have gotten a life sentence).
Thanks for the reply! I look forward to the full interview and agree with you that the excerpts you published here were themselves newsworthy. And of course it's not your job as the interviewer to take up the position of the prosecution or cross-examine your guest.
I don't disagree at all that this was a "win" compared to many of the alternatives; I agree that before sentencing, it's hard to assess how much of a defense or prosecution victory the jury's verdict was. But the Stanley Cup metaphor is ridiculously over the top in any universe when your client is still sleeping on a jail bunk. And Mr. Agnifilo is still advocating, which I don't blame him for a bit; but I take every word he said as being affected by his legal duties to his client. Lawyers owe duties of candor to the court, and risk blowback if they aren't candid with jurors, but we owe no duty of candor to interviewers. So I'm not faulting Mr. Agnifilo. I'm just noting, for those less reflexively skeptical of unrebutted lawyer arguments than I am, that he's doing his job to spin EVERYTHING for his client's benefit, and enlightening your readers is no part of his duty.
Regardless, it's timely and good work by you, Mr. Lat. Carry on.
Good interview, Mr. Lat. Mr. Agnifilo spins a good story, and does his very best job of both commending the jury for not convicting on the more serious charges and attacking them for convicting on the lesser charges. They're unfair, except when they're fair, and they follow the evidence when it leads to an acquittal, but ignore it when it leads to a conviction.
He has to embrace this schizoid position to continue his representation — AND EVERY ONE OF YOUR READERS SHOULD UNDERSTAND that that's what he's doing in this interview: Representing a client still in custody and in jeopardy. It would be sadly naive to expect him to stop acting like an advocate and to act instead like a thoughtful, honest, and open source of disinterested facts.
The real reason they didn't put his client on the stand was that they thought the jury would think worse of him, and better of the prosecution's case. He can talk about the other witness who made his client's testimony unnecessary, but that is utter bullsh!t, and I guarantee you that no one on the jury would agree with Agnifilo now that the defendant was an irrelevant witness. He was a defending hiding behind his Fifth Amendment privilege, and while the jury can't draw negative inferences from that (unless they violate their sworn duty to follow court instructions), we observers outside the courtroom are under no such compulsion.
The prosecutors probably aren't doing interviews with the press, but it would be interesting to see a qualified proxy steel-man their counterarguments to everything Mr. Agnifilo said. Here, in this format, Mr. Agnifilo had the great privilege of being sure no one on the spot could reply to and rebut anything he claimed; in court, where he did less well (multiple felony convictions aren't winning the Stanley Cup! What horsesh!t!), he didn't have that privilege.
PS: The "how was he to know it was illegal, when he sees prostitution rings operating without interference?"-argument is particularly offensive, and misrepresents the kind of intention required to meet the charged crimes' specific intent requirement. But he couldn't resist making it here because he doesn't have anything better.
In this highlights post, I didn’t print my questions. As you’ll see when I post the full episode, I did push back and press him on a number of things. (That said, I’m not an expert on this case, so I’m sure someone could have done a much better job than I did as devil’s advocate.)
In Marc’s defense, I will say—having read and listened to a lot of the commentary—this can be fairly characterized as a big defense win. And it was generally received as such by folks closely following the case (including people who hate Combs and were sad, angry, or both about the verdict).
Of course, a lot depends on sentencing. People calling this a defense win are assuming a reasonable sentence. If Combs gets hit hard at sentencing, that changes things (although recall that had he gotten convicted on the counts he was acquitted on, he could have gotten a life sentence).
Thanks for the reply! I look forward to the full interview and agree with you that the excerpts you published here were themselves newsworthy. And of course it's not your job as the interviewer to take up the position of the prosecution or cross-examine your guest.
I don't disagree at all that this was a "win" compared to many of the alternatives; I agree that before sentencing, it's hard to assess how much of a defense or prosecution victory the jury's verdict was. But the Stanley Cup metaphor is ridiculously over the top in any universe when your client is still sleeping on a jail bunk. And Mr. Agnifilo is still advocating, which I don't blame him for a bit; but I take every word he said as being affected by his legal duties to his client. Lawyers owe duties of candor to the court, and risk blowback if they aren't candid with jurors, but we owe no duty of candor to interviewers. So I'm not faulting Mr. Agnifilo. I'm just noting, for those less reflexively skeptical of unrebutted lawyer arguments than I am, that he's doing his job to spin EVERYTHING for his client's benefit, and enlightening your readers is no part of his duty.
Regardless, it's timely and good work by you, Mr. Lat. Carry on.