this refers to the court hearings and procedures
2006-07-13 15:12:17 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Playing dumb and being caught lying.
2006-07-13 15:14:58 · answer #1 · answered by Kenneth H 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
those who say MJ performed antagonistic to weak defenses are purely haters searching for an excuse to say something antagonistic to MJ. MJ is the G.O.A.T. and some human beings cant settle for it. Alot of those 12 and 14 three hundred and sixty 5 days previous children on listed lower than are on Kobe or Lebron's nuts way too a lot to be sure Jordan's greatness. The 90s had a lot more durable and extra actual protection. They didnt call contact fouls like they do in the present day. Infact I didnt even want to visual show unit the video clips to come back up with a strong clarification this question. Michael Jordan scored sixty 3 factors antagonistic to the protecting champion Celtics contained in the 80s and between the perfect defenses contained in the heritage of the NBA even as he became in his early 20s. Kobe Bryant must be the perfect scorer contained in the NBA and he performed like garbage antagonistic to the Pistons protection contained in the 2004 NBA Finals. dont ignore about 2008 even as Kobe Bryant had hardship scoring antagonistic to Paul Peirce and the Celtics protection and became held in examine and has yet another undesirable NBA Finals performance. Jordan performed antagonistic to many of the awesome defenses contained in the heritage of the NBA and placed up numbers humorous how Alpha Wolf impersonated King to reply to this question lol. all of us understand thats no longer the authentic King
2016-11-06 08:41:30 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think staying silent is the weakest form of defence.
Yes you have the right to remain silent when cross examined but in some jurisdictions, it is specifically coded into law that "adverse inferences will be drawn" against a witness who chooses to remain silent.
2006-07-13 15:52:26 · answer #3 · answered by Sentient 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The weakest defense is entrapment -- you admit you did it but blame the cops for it. True or not, it won't convince a jury.
2006-07-13 23:58:32 · answer #4 · answered by Monso Orda 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well, that would, of course depend on the type of case/action: civil, criminal ,contract, tort,etc? but as a modest attempt at (half) wit i would suggest that old standby--a defense presented by the defendant himself, personally,without the aid and support of capable and professional representation. (this doesn't apply to small claims court, of course).
2006-07-13 15:20:55 · answer #5 · answered by drakke1 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ignorance.
2006-07-13 15:15:03 · answer #6 · answered by jared 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Killing your parents then asking the judge for leniency because you're an orphan.
2006-07-13 15:18:19 · answer #7 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not having an alibi
2006-07-13 15:16:15 · answer #8 · answered by dogtrot14 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Taking the fifth...
2006-07-13 15:16:51 · answer #9 · answered by cmpbush 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
how about insanity defence? very hard to prove
2006-07-13 15:15:53 · answer #10 · answered by Larry 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋