Everyone has heard of the Twinkie Defense – even though there was no such thing.
Likes: 1013
Views: 28768
Leave a Reply
Smountinman
Hot poppers must be really dangerous
Rich Migala
Evidence that fake news isn't new.
working shlub
all kinds of misleading on that case…always hear he got off on murder….technically yes he was convicted of manslaughter but that is never mentioned…saw a history channel fact or fiction years ago explaining what really happened.
Herrick Mostyn
Steve, you're an attorney. Shouldn't you say White's victims were "killed" or "shot to death" instead of "murdered"? The jury didn't convict on the murder charge – they found him guilty of manslaughter. (I mean, isn't "murder" what attorneys call a "term of art"?)
kirk kopak
and to think, all this time I thought it had to do with sexuality of the murdered person.
veulmet
this is interesting but I would have liked it better if it where about a house of ill repute and there was a ho ho snack cake defense for it, Steve if this is over the top, please delete it.
Fixer Upper
It's right up there with the McDonald's coffee case. It's just tort-reform propaganda based in a sliver of half truth but made into a whole lie. .
Hot poppers must be really dangerous
Evidence that fake news isn't new.
all kinds of misleading on that case…always hear he got off on murder….technically yes he was convicted of manslaughter but that is never mentioned…saw a history channel fact or fiction years ago explaining what really happened.
Steve, you're an attorney. Shouldn't you say White's victims were "killed" or "shot to death" instead of "murdered"? The jury didn't convict on the murder charge – they found him guilty of manslaughter. (I mean, isn't "murder" what attorneys call a "term of art"?)
and to think, all this time I thought it had to do with sexuality of the murdered person.
this is interesting but I would have liked it better if it where about a house of ill repute and there was a ho ho snack cake defense for it, Steve if this is over the top, please delete it.
It's right up there with the McDonald's coffee case. It's just tort-reform propaganda based in a sliver of half truth but made into a whole lie. .
What's your take on the affluenza defense?