I must say I don't get Brent Wilkes'
defense strategy. Wilkes, (alleged) briber of disgraced halfwit Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA), is represented by celeb lawyer Mark Geragos. This afternoon, in a federal courtroom in San Diego began the defense phase of the trial. Today he called to the stand only a former executive assistant of Wilkes who, less than surprisingly, called him a good employer and a "straight shooter."
Then Geragos said that he planned to call the rest of his witnesses
on Tuesday when the trial resumes. Closing arguments are likely on Wednesday and the jury will likely have the case by the end of the day.
Now, here's the thing. I know the strength of a case is not measurable only or even mainly in duration. But you need a little time to make any kind of serious argument. And a serious argument would seem to be called for when the government has brought forward overwhelming evidence of your guilt against an unsympathetic client.
The only logic I can see to this is based on something a lawyer friend told me. If Wilkes tries to push an 'everybody does it' too hard at trial then he's locked himself to a set of facts that will make it a lot harder for him to turn around and cut a deal in exchange for serving up Bill Lowery and Rep. Lewis
That makes sense, I guess. Though I think I need to guard against a professional investment in having it having it be true since Wilkes serving up these two jokers would be a veritable festival of muck, something akin to taking a pin to a muck balloon. But in that case, why'd he go to trial in the first place? Something about the whole thing just doesn't fit to me.
Who can help me?