Originally Posted by
DX-MAN
Sorry, peeps, I already know about the adversarial trial system; I'm not saying 'slime' out of ignorance.
I consider it 'slime' when underhanded tactics are the choice for defense. Fast-talking questions intended to trip/confuse, suggested characterizations that are stereotypical....
Defense by any means necessary just doesn't get it for me; I don't like cheats.
What happened to personal honor? (Rhetorical Q....)
If the witnesses are lying (not saying they are in this case), fast-paced, challenging questions can unmask the deception. The prosecutor will do the same to any defence witnesses. "Personal honor" demands that lawyers act this way. To give a halfhearted effort is unethical, on either side.