re: Smith Shooter's Lawyer "My Client Was Not The Aggressor"

All depends on the facts. If someone's saying "i'm getting my gun" and reaching for it, I think you can probably make a decent argument he was reasonably in fear for his life. If Hayes gets out his car with a gun in his hand and it causes Smith to rush to his car to protect himself, even if by grabbing for a weapon, I'd put that in front of a jury every day. I guess we'll see what the statements say. Based on what I know about the case, I do think that Hayes believes he acted in self-defense.

I don't think the jury is going to be affected by the Saints thing (at least a judge won't believe it is), but fuller will try to make it a big deal. Expect the state to turn voir dire around and dig at Fuller being a die-hard falcons fan through a "does anyone dislike the Saints so much, such as a Falcons fan like Mr. Fuller, that they'd be unable to fairly...." if he does.

He's gonna try the poor vs. rich argument, conspiracy to save the honor of the famous football player, and he'll try to play on ceravolo and the corrupt system. None of that is overly difficult to overcome in a case with a victim, though. The planting guns/drugs and/or misidentification tactics he uses a lot won't work. Unlike a PWITD where the police are the witnesses to the illegal transaction, or even a drug case where a cop recovers heroin in a guy's pocket, police misconduct really doesn't work in a case where the prosecutor can say "forget about everything you've heard from a police officer if you want to. Think about what the eyewitnesses told you and everything you saw and heard played for you." Having the right person to tell a jury "you're smarter than that" goes a long way against him. I'd hammer on everything he's been talking about since it happened, too. I've never seen him try a self-defense theory, but I have seen victim blame, which I think is a weak point for him.