I appreciate the response to my recent column submitted by attorney John Pucci that discussed his differing perspective about the quality of the evidence being presented in the Trump impeachment proceedings, given Mr. Pucci’s background as a trial lawyer and federal prosecutor.
I am not a lawyer, but I have reviewed and consulted on dozens of medical malpractice cases, and have provided testimony as an expert witness in several of these cases. What became clear to me about trial cases is that it is the task of the opposing counsels to convince the members of the jury of the alternative realities they seek to create from the fundamental facts of the case.
The side that gets the jury to buy into their version of the story wins the case. Part of the process is that each side gets to question the validity and reliability of the testimony and evidence presented by the other.
Though Mr. Pucci has an extensive experience as a prosecutor, he clearly has taken a political position on the impeachment and presents a case from the perspective of the Democrats. I am not a lawyer or a prosecutor, but more consider myself a member of the jury that includes whatever percentage of the 330 million Americans are paying attention to the impeachment proceedings.
Mr. Pucci is correct, that the evidence as a whole needs to be considered for the jury to make a conclusion, but the whole picture depends on whether or not the individual parts of the testimony are believable, pertinent and convincing. As such, only a partisan could find the evidence as presented by the house intelligence committee after cross examination by the opposition as anything but absolutely wanting.
The case for impeachment should be dismissed.
Jay Fleitman
Florence