The high-risk strategy in Tupac Shakur case: Defense says client is full of BS

This is read by an automated voice.Please report any issues or inconsistencies here.

See more from the L.A.Times in Google Search.

Set us as preferred Michael Sanft, the attorney for the man on trial for allegedly orchestrating the murder of Tupac Shakur, finds himself in a position out of a “Law and Order” episode.He must convince a jury to ignore incriminating statements his client made.With every word he speaks, Sanft argues that Duane Davis is a liar who cannot be trusted.It started during opening arguments, when Sanft flashed the word “bulls—” on the screen for jurors, referring not to the prosecutors but to Davis himself.

And it will continue as the Las Vegas trial comes to a close Monday.Legal experts call it a novel tactic, but perhaps the best shot at getting the jurors to ignore numerous statements in police interviews and a documentary they heard in Davis’ own words.There is actually a term of art for this kind of defense challenge: puffing, or claiming a criminal case is based on the client’s exaggerations.“When your client submits to two police interviews and publishes a book making damaging admissions, he is either a liar or guilty; pick your poison,” said Glen Jonas, a defense attorney for high-profile clients.“It is about establishing reasonable doubt with what you have to work with within the confines of the truth.”“Puffing” can be an effective tool when the prosecution’s case relies heavily on the defendant’s words rather than clear physical evidence or scientific evidence, Jonas said.“It is very unusual for a defense attorney to argue that their client is a liar,” said Lou Shapiro, a Los Angeles defense attorney.

“But sometimes the facts and circumstances call for it.”Davis has been the star witness for Nevada prosecutors, who devoted large portions of their case to simply recounting things the murder suspect has said about the 1996 killing of the rap star during a drive-by shooting just off the La...