Brief fact scenario:

Defendant and brother murder their elderly father by beating him to death.
EMT first responder asks father what happened to him?
Father tells the EMT that Appellant kicked him in the head and bit him.

Appellant's "Point of Error"
o Appellant argues the statement by the father violates the Confrontation Clause b/c the prosecution never called the father to testify!
Choose the best answer:

That argument:
A. Proves that the attorney is unethical
B. Proves that the attorney is incredibly stupid
C. Proves that the attorney is ballsy
D. All of the above

Oh, I've had dumber. Just finished working on one where the defendant claimed a pre-arrest questioning violated... wait for it... his rights under Art.I sec.10 of the Texas Constitution, that no one shall be held to answer for a felony except upon indictment by a grand jury. Because questioning him was "holding him to answer", of course!

Questioner was also a nun, not a cop, but let's not go there...

Lori,

That argument has the ring of a person who has just killed his parents seeking for mercy because he is now an orphan!!!

We had a writ saying that his trial should be reversed because the Texas flag had gold fringe.

----ok, so that was pro se....but still.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rk:
We had a writ saying that his trial should be reversed because the Texas flag had gold fringe.

----ok, so that was pro se....but still.

---

Ah, yes. The military tribunal argument. Did he claim a copyright on his name, stating you owed him money for using it in the indictment?

How about, "You can't execute me because I need to meet with the victim, and I just haven't been able to find time in the last DECADE."

Details.