Posted by Nick on June 04, 2007 at 11:55:35am:
I was wondering if anyone remembered an episode wherein Matlock applied a defense strategy similar to the following:
Calls (as only witness) the defendant, whom he then asks for little or nothing more than his/her name. Prosecutor on cross asks very little too. Then in closing he implies that because the prosecutor did not inquire about circumstances concering self-defense for [whatever the charge was], the jury should infer there was something there that the prosecution wanted to avoid and thus acquit his client.
Does anything resembling this ring a bell?