But I think the judge would have to let him fire his

But I think the judge would have to let him fire his
by Barrister (2024-01-10 10:30:58)

In reply to: Why couldn't he, though? He would be entitled to.... posted by Marine Domer

lawyers first, and I don't see that happening. There's a difference between splitting closing argument between two lawyers and having a represented defendant be allowed to argue to the jury while not under oath (and having not testified under oath during the trial).

Replies:

Perhaps, but the court could also just instruct the jury.... - Marine Domer 2024-01-10 10:50:22
- Looks like the judge is letting him do it. I forgot this was - Barrister 2024-01-10 11:32:37
  - I doubt this is intended to sway the judge. - IAND75 2024-01-10 11:35:06