We took a vote. We wanted to surprise you when you got back, Anon. Go on, record something!
So, do you think he's guilty and softened the statute subconsciously? Why else would a lawyer see this as advantageous? Thank you.
Understood. So he's self-serving and sought a chance to 'muddy the waters' by influencing the public's understanding of the statute? Sort of tainting the jury pool with intentional misinformation as to his use of 'discretion' versus 'Shall/Mandatory/No discretion'. Probably comped and desperate. Appreciate the insight.