Replies

The panel was split. The attorneys argued that it was completly fair, even obligatory for this to be introduced. As I remember, one attorney objected saying that he would not introduce this. The other attorneys attacked him for failing his client, saying things like it should be left up to the jury to sort this out. The non-lawyers on the panel thought bringing this into play would be reprehensible and came to the aid of the beleagered attorney.

Actually, most of the attorneys, sounded to me, very self-serving. They seemed more interested in winning the case than in achieving justice. BTW, there was an interesting exchange on just what is justice? The attorneys focused on procedure and the non-attorneys on outcomes.

This is really a good series that most large libraries should have. The panel participants change from tape to tape as they subject changes. Gingrich was on most of them. A very young, slim and trim Gingrich. Scalia was there. Geraldine Ferraro too.

This was the series where Dan Rather said he would let a US combat unit walk into an ambush rather than warn them since he owed his allegience to journalism. He was heavily attacked, recanted, and said he had missed that part about being able to warn them.