You want to be a star. Admit it, you do. Heck, if Kim Kardashian can turn herself into a household name and make millions, why not you? You’re every bit as untalented, but at least you’ve got an expensive education. Shouldn’t that be worth something?
Well, have I got great news for you! Using the Joe Amendola method, you too can be a television star just like Joe! You can hold press conferences and where a hundred microphones hang on your every word. You can have former 15-minute-of-fame lawyers like Mark Geragos doing play-by-plays all about you. Jeffrey Toobin will fawn over your daring dos, making very serious faces as if it’s all about him.
Nancy Grace will hate you and snarl every time your name is mentioned.
It doesn’t get any better than this. And all you have to do is watch this video of Joe Amendola’s press conference following the conviction of Jerry Sandusky and answer the following question: How many ways has Amendola undermined his client in order to pretend he’s a star?
CLE credits are not available for this course. However, every successful graduate will get a chance to be a regular on Piers Morgan Tonight, a chance to guest host on HLN and a signed copy of Brian Tannebaum’s How To Be Famous Without Anyone Noticing You Suck, coming soon from ABA Press.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Are you saying it *isn’t* all about Jeffrey Toobin?!
How could it not be?
It seemed as though you were doubting this clear fact.
Well done. Still can’t believe (1) What I heard from Amendola and (2) How Much I heard from Linda Kelly. Painful stuff to watch and hear. Bad moment for all lawyers. Plus Kelly made the PA AG’s office look like a 3rd-rate Memphis bowling team strung out on the wrong downers.
The judge was fair. It’d have been nice if he had transferred venue, but the the jury was fair. The jury’s verdict was unsurprising because there was considerable evidence of guilt.
That was a fair-minded talk by the prosecutor, who at least conceded that there are innocent people in prison.
Will this video be reviewed by the appeals court or are they restricted to what happened during the trial?
You can bet that I would make sure it’s discussed at length at sentence if it was me in arguing (that he was given as nearly flawless a trial as possible, even defense counsel says so), so that it would indeed be part of the record. Should the defense make a contrary argument later, I would move to expand the record to show that the defense was being disingenuous, and that it’s arguments conflict with its prior positions.
Plus, want to bet that the judges or their clerks watched it?
“… as nearly flawless a trial as possible …”
How did the state get all charges tried at once? Surely this was completely prejudicial. Can any of them stand on their own? Could the jury sort them out and evaluate each one by one?
Surely? Nah. Had it been me, I would have moved to try each separately to avoid spillover prejudice, and the prosecution would have argued against it as a matter of economy. The prosecution would have won the point.
ISTM that the US is getting perilously close to having all cases tried by the likes of “Larry the Cable Guy” using his immortal philosophy, “Let’s get ‘er done”.
Justice? Too expensive. Fairness? Can’t be achieved. Rule of law? Too confusing.
Some people quote Voltaire. You quote Larry the Cable Guy. We all use what know, I guess.