Mark Geragos

You're not changing anybody's hearts and minds as a lawyer.

What you're doing is you're picking a jury that will look at what your defense is.

and either buy it or not buy it.

Either the story resonates or the story doesn't resonate.

You can't change in a week, in a month, even in a one-year trial, the way somebody views life.

And so once you had that jury for whatever reasons, and that jury was selected, you have to course correct to give them whatever arguments.

And hopefully the lawyer, when he was doing that,

understood and by the way the judge did give him a manslaughter that wasn't necessarily required when the client doesn't take the stand that was a victory for the defense but at the same time i guarantee you if he still had any neurons firing the lawyer had tried to question his client and i can tell you having raised a teenage boy having represented countless teenage boys

They there's rarely the teenage boy that you're going to want to put on the stand who's going to withstand a cross-examination.

It just is it's virtually impossible.

So is that a good command from everybody?

We're not going to stab any kids today?

Probably not.

Hey, try that, lady.

Yeah, well, I was going to say, Arthur, have you ever met a prosecutor who couldn't give you a pretext as to why they use somebody?

What kind of nonsense is and why is a prosecutor who's got the burden of proof?

Why do they need a peremptory challenge?

I think, you know, they have the burden of proof.

Why should they be able to exercise peremptories?

At least in federal courts, somebody understands that.