You honor, I request that I be disbarred for introducing this evidence against my own client.

I'm also posting an image!

I will not post an image.

I am not posting an image. I just wanted to thank HereComesTheScience for the link. very funny

How is this a fail? This is a standard legal tactic: to try to find ways of removing evidence that might be deemed useful in the prosecution of your client.

The photo is not only solid circumstantial evidence, it could also be emotionally powerful to a jury. It's probably the second best piece of evidence that the prosecution has, next to the testimony of the victim. If Brown's lawyers are able to forcefully argue to the judge that the only way the hospital photo was released was due to a code violation by either the police or the hospital, then the court would likely deem it inadmissible, and a jury would never see it, leaving it that much easier for the defense to argue that the case is really a "he-said, she-said" situation, and start planting seeds of doubt.

It's not pretty, but it's the way it goes in the courtroom.

I'd call this one "Interesting", but definitely not "FAIL".

I may be posting an image.

I am both posting and not posting an image, and the cat in this box is simultaneously alive and dead.

galumph200: How is this a fail? This is a standard legal tactic: to try to find ways of removing evidence that might be deemed useful in the prosecution of your client.

The photo is not only solid circumstantial evidence, it could also be emotionally powerful to a jury. It's probably the second best piece of evidence that the prosecution has, next to the testimony of the victim. If Brown's lawyers are able to forcefully argue to the judge that the only way the hospital photo was released was due to a code violation by either the police or the hospital, then the court would likely deem it inadmissible, and a jury would never see it, leaving it that much easier for the defense to argue that the case is really a "he-said, she-said" situation, and start planting seeds of doubt.

They're focusing on the leak to the media. The lawyer says it's relevant if it was leaked by a detective working on the case (I don't see now). Typical attempt to smear the cops though. Being standard sleazy tactics doesn't mean it's not FAIL.

However, I think the real FAIL is when scumbags don't just accept responsibility and plead guilty (especially when the evidence is stacked). If he wasn't so undoubtedly guilty the defense wouldn't have to pretend that the leak of the photo had something to do with whether he beat the sh*t out of that woman or not.

galumph200: and a jury would never see it

Given how many places that picture has been reproduced, I'm not sure how easy it would be to find twelve jurors that hadn't already seen it.

destitute college kid: I am both posting and not posting an image, and the cat in this box is simultaneously alive and dead.

schroedinger's hotlink.

Congratulations. You're being represented by Scott Petersen's attorney and the guy that Michael Jackson fired--and was grilled by a judge because he was trying a third case as well.

Way to go, Chris. Your judgment's sound as ever.

I would just like to request that bighasbeen buy me both a new laptop and a new pair of pants, because I ruined both laughing so damned hard.

cameroncrazy1984: destitute college kid: I am both posting and not posting an image, and the cat in this box is simultaneously alive and dead.

schroedinger's hotlink.

You won't know if the link is farked or not until you click it.

ella ella ella, eh, eh, eh...

Ladies and gentlemen of the panel, Per exhibit A, she asked for it. I rest my case.

galumph200: How is this a fail? This is a standard legal tactic: to try to find ways of removing evidence that might be deemed useful in the prosecution of your client.

The photo is not only solid circumstantial evidence, it could also be emotionally powerful to a jury. It's probably the second best piece of evidence that the prosecution has, next to the testimony of the victim. If Brown's lawyers are able to forcefully argue to the judge that the only way the hospital photo was released was due to a code violation by either the police or the hospital, then the court would likely deem it inadmissible, and a jury would never see it, leaving it that much easier for the defense to argue that the case is really a "he-said, she-said" situation, and start planting seeds of doubt.

It's not pretty, but it's the way it goes in the courtroom.

I'd call this one "Interesting", but definitely not "FAIL".

IANAL (ha, I typed 'anal') but your comment leads me to believe that I could get a law degree from Harvard right now by emailing it to them with the subject "An average person's legal reasoning".

The defense isn't trying to get the picture thrown out, which is what you seem to be assuming based on your comment. They're trying to claim that the photo 'leak' was intentionally done by one of the investigators or officers directly involved in the case as part of a plan to benefit materially from the increased publicity such a leak might generate.

While the issue has merit on its own (the evidence shouldn't have seen light of day until revealed at the trial), the attempt to use it as a defence ploy is sketchy at best. Even if it was done intentionally, the most it would warrant would be the dismissal of the responsible person(s) and possibly misdemeanor charges against them. In this case the evidence itself is not tainted in any way simply by being released prematurely to the public, since it is simply a picture of what was seen at the time and it still reflects the condition the victim was in at the time.

Trying to claim that it might prematurely bias the jury against Brown might have a slightly better chance of being held valid, but the most that would result in would probably be a venue change, or more strict screening of the potential jurors to determine if this single picture has prejudiced them against Brown. They would have seen the picture in the course of the trial anyway, so having already seen it doesn't automatically 'taint' any potential jurors.

To get the picture itself dismissed would require showing that there is a distinct probability that releasing it early changed the circumstances under which it was taken, that the early release somehow made the picture less truthful, or that the picture itself is fraudulent and not an honest representation. Barring any of those of those, I don't see how it would be even remotely reasonable to make the photo inadmissible.

I would think the "Chewbacca defense" would work better in this sort of case.

pnjunction: I think the real FAIL is when scumbags don't just accept responsibility and plead guilty

The real FAIL is when you expect people to admit guilt and accept punishment when they have a chance, however minor, to escape justice.
Especially when they're rich enough to pay for defense.
That's one of the flaws of our legal system. Whether a person has money should not be relevant to whether he is treated fairly under law, but it IS relevant. The lawyers you hire, the appeals, the out-of-court settlements. A rich person has a much, much greater chance to get acquitted (whether he really is guilty or not) than a poor person. And this is fundamentally wrong.

That little punk will get off scott free and then beat Rihanna's ass again. Some women are slow learners.