What is your opinion on Ken? The way he organized press conference before Avery's trial? The way he proposed two wildly different theories in two trials? Do you think it was right on Ken's part to do that?
What is your opinion on Dean Strang/Jerry Buting? Do you think they could have done more to establish reasonable doubt?
Chief Judge McKee's concurrence in this case summarizes how I feel about such tactics: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?...:
> Bribery has thus undergone a metamorphosis that has transformed it from a prosecutorial theory that “just doesn’t have any place in this,” to the lynchpin of the Government’s argument on appeal. I understand why the Government adopted this adversarial bait and switch after Skilling. However, the argument could have – and should have – been made in a less disingenuous and more candid manner.
> Although I agree with, and fully join the analysis in the Per Curiam opinion of my colleagues, I feel compelled to write separately to ensure that the “now you see it, now you don’t” approach to advocacy adopted by the Government in this case does not pass without comment.