Smoke and mirrors
Not guilty on CDVHAN (criminal domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature), kidnapping, and burglary in Georgetown County today. No smoke or mirrors necessary. What the hell does smoke and mirrors mean, anyway?
Ok. I looked it up, Wikipedia says:
Smoke and mirrors is a metaphor for a deceptive, fraudulent or insubstantial explanation or description. The source of the name is based on magicians' illusions, where magicians make objects appear or disappear by extending or retracting mirrors amid a confusing burst of smoke. The expression may have a connotation of virtuosity or cleverness in carrying out such a deception.In the field of computer programming, it is used to describe a program or functionality that doesn't yet exist, but appears as though it does (cf. vaporware). This is often done to demonstrate what a resulting project will function/look like after the code is complete — at a trade show, for example.
More generally, "smoke and mirrors" may refer to any sort of presentation by which the audience is intended to be deceived, such as an attempt to fool a prospective client into thinking that one has capabilities necessary to deliver a product in question.
So, when a prosecutor repeatedly says that the defense's case is "smoke and mirrors," they are claiming that the defense is being deceptive and fraudulent, and that their defense is insubstantial. At least it has a connotation of virtuosity and cleverness, that sounds impressive.
Comments
Hey, they stole my argument!
Congratulations.
Posted by: Mark Bennett | January 28, 2010 12:18 PM
Stupid Justia blog stripped my link:
http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2007/04/prosecutorial-memes.html
Posted by: Mark Bennett | January 28, 2010 12:19 PM
I like the 2007 post, had not seen it. I did a decent job of forestalling the ridiculous "CSI effect" argument in this past trial.
Posted by: BFrederick | January 28, 2010 7:23 PM
I once saw what I thought was an effective response to the solicitor's claims of "smoke and mirrors" during closing arguments. Defense counsel looked at the jury and said something along the lines of, "The solicitor has accused me of using 'smoke and mirrors' to deceive you and shift the focus of the case away from the real issue. Well, ladies and gentlemen, we all know that smoke and mirrors only work on those foolish enough to fall for it. I can only speak for myself, but I don't see a single fool sitting in this jury box."
I thought it was a pretty good response, although the rest of the closing wasn't very impressive.
Posted by: Ryan Phillips | January 30, 2010 1:03 PM
If defense closes first, we can either defuse it or accuse the prosecutor of using smoke and mirrors.
Of course, if prosecutor closes first, we need a response to it. Usually when prosecutor closes first, I have ignored it.
Posted by: BFrederick | January 30, 2010 11:15 PM