Jeff Justice Quotes (29 Quotes)

He is very calm and comfortable.

I believe Amanda would have testified exactly like she told the police seven times -- this was an accident and how it happened. So I wasn't concerned about that.

If they sit down and ask themselves what evidence they have that he meant to kill the children, it won't take them very long.

The lay person doesn't have that training so their response to a life-threatening situation isn't always the same or as heroic as you would like it to be.

You have to do what's in your client's best interest and no one else's.

We're in a position where one of these two statements is a lie. He's admitted he's lied about the most important part of his testimony so how can the judge allow this person to testify But that's what judges do, they make decisions.

We believe this is just a wild guess that came from the emotion of the moment. The doctor treated this baby and felt very sad and he spoke from emotion as opposed to cold, calculated scientific approach to things. When you are making decisions about life and death, which this case is, you don't make guesses.

If you've ever been to a funeral where there's a parent who has lost a child and they're dealing with lots of people, oftentimes they will smile as a way of getting through it. It is absolutely no indication of what is really going on in a person's mind.

If that's the only evidence you've got, it's a sad day in the justice system to prosecute people for murder on the basis of that.

How could you make that up You can't.

I think this jury was left with no choice. They were put in a position of finding him guilty of murder or letting him go home.

This is an attempt to get discovery they are not entitled to - it's also six months too late.

In order to prove whether it was voluntary or involuntary, you must have access to Ms. Hamm or a psychologist who can talk to Ms. Hamm. When we filed the motion, we believed that would be forthcoming and we would have that access.

The outcome itself shows it was an unreasonable risk.

I can't imagine you could convict someone of murder on the basis of a person like that.

But that's not going to happen. I'm confident that's not going to happen.

If we take it according to the way the evidence was presented, that was about the twelfth of 78 witnesses, so obviously there is a long deliberation process going ... The jury is taking their job as seriously as the police and lawyers did.

I can't say it entered into any of my decision making.

He's going to be the first defense witness.

He is calm. He knows he's going to testify and he's going to explain what happened, and he's ready to do it.

I think it was because it was six o'clock at night ... I will be asking the judge to reconsider it considering the lateness of the night and we'll see.

It's an adjustment in the market. Closing activity lags sales activity.

This would have given the jury something to compromise on if they felt there was not enough evidence for murder, yet three kids are dead and someone has to pay.

This case is an accident. It is not an intentional act.

It gives the jury something to compromise on if they feel that there is not enough evidence for murder and yet three kids are dead, so somebody ought to pay. You always, as a lawyer, are afraid of that kind of thinking.

A lot of people have said in this case 'I can't believe that he didn't go in and try to save those kids, it's just 4 feet of water.' Well, he did and he knew it was hopeless.

I would be shocked if we had a verdict before the first of April.

I think we can say this is an absolutely wonderful thing that the jury takes their job and responsibility as seriously as the lawyers and police did in this case.

You've got to come and listen to the show.