Butt/Amir/Asif - Spot Fixing Trial

[Agent Nationaux]

That is true but we won't know until the trial is over.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

@ GingerFurball

Just want your opinion on the following scenario:

Ignore the ICC hearing because it's regarding the trial only. Also consider that the only evidence against Asif is the video evidence, where Majeed correctly predicted the no-balls.

If you were in Asif's shoes, which defence would you go with.

1. The no-ball was an accident.

or

2. Butt made me do it.

 

[Xuhaib]

just to make it clear i am very certain Ass-if was surely involved but seriously if there is no more evidence against him he could make a strong case.

"The batsman were coming down the track to nullify my swing the skipper told me to bowl a deliberate quicker ball without worrying about over stepping the line just get them on the back foot for a while"

Yes the ball was not certainly very fast but this is cricket your plans will not be properly executed 100% every time on the field.

Asking a bowler to stop worrying about no balls and wides is not new for Pakistan during the 92 WC when Pakistan was on the brink Imran went to Wasim and told him stop worrying about no ball and wides just try to blast the batsman out, the story is a legend in Pakistan.

 

[Burgey]

@ GingerFurball

Just want your opinion on the following scenario:

Ignore the ICC hearing because it's regarding the trial only. Also consider that the only evidence against Asif is the video evidence, where Majeed correctly predicted the no-balls.

If you were in Asif's shoes, which defence would you go with.

1. The no-ball was an accident.

or

2. Butt made me do it.

The first, easily.

The second raises more questions than it answers.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

The first, easily.

The second raises more questions than it answers.

If he chooses 1 then how does he explain the fact that Majeed predicted the no balls. If he chooses 2 then he can explain that (Butt and Majeed conspired without telling him).

 

[Migara]

Judge: Why did you do [insert crime that defendant is accused of committing]?
Defendant: I didn't do it.

vs

Judge: Why did you do [insert crime that defendant is accused of committing]?
Defendant: Because Mr X asked me to it/paid me to do it.

Look at what each answer implies. The first answer is a straight denial; I didn't do it, I am not guilty of the crime I am accused of, someone else is guilty of it. In the second answer by shifting the blame to Mr X (in this case, Salman Butt) there is an implied admission of guilt in the answer. When you're seeking to be acquitted, the first answer is a far better answer to give. Hence why Asif didn't seek to blame Butt; doing so would have led to several further, awkward questions being asked.

When [insert crime that defendant is accused of committing] <> bowling a no ball.

 

[Burgey]

If he chooses 1 then how does he explain the fact that Majeed predicted the no balls. If he chooses 2 then he can explain that (Butt and Majeed conspired without telling him).

He doesn't have to explain anything. He doesn't have to say anything. The prosecution has to prove it.

If he chooses two he gets in a world of pain because the first thing I'd ask him us wtf he was doing deliberately costing his team runs and didn't he think to question his captain.

If he says it was a coincidence, all you can do is suggest tot him it wasn't, and he says "it was".

Trust me on this mate, I've been there.

Beyond reasonable doubt is a high standard to meet. People know no balls happen, and coincidences happen. If he admits he did it at someone else's behest, he eliminates part of the doubt, and leaves himself open to all sorts of other lines of questioning.

 

[fredfertang]

Happen he'll run duress ie "he said if I don't do as he asked he'll make sure I'll never play professional cricket again and all my family will starve to death" Can that amount to duress? Good first year Criminal Law Exam question that one

 

[four_or_six]

I've always wondered about legal stuff, because I have no idea wtf goes on with lawyers. Does a defendent just say to their lawyer "I'm guilty, but I'm not admitting it, what's the best way to get me off?" or is that generally considered to be unethical?

 

[Burgey]

Happen he'll run duress ie "he said if I don't do as he asked he'll make sure I'll never play professional cricket again and all my family will starve to death" Can that amount to duress? Good first year Criminal Law Exam question that one

Probably not when there's a black and white ten metres away he could have walked up to and told in order to save his career.

 

[Burgey]

I've always wondered about legal stuff, because I have no idea wtf goes on with lawyers. Does a defendent just say to their lawyer "I'm guilty, but I'm not admitting it, what's the best way to get me off?" or is that generally considered to be unethical?

There are all sorts of ethical considerations if a client says that, principally "hoe can I hang onto the brief and get a fee now the **** has spilled his guts to me?"

 

[four_or_six]

There are all sorts of ethical considerations if a client says that, principally "hoe can I hang onto the brief and get a fee now the **** has spilled his guts to me?"

But there's no hard-and-fast rule that says you can't represent them any more? I've always wondered because I know there's confidentiality between lawyer and client, but I don't know what lawyers do in this situation.

 

[Burgey]

But there's no hard-and-fast rule that says you can't represent them any more? I've always wondered because I know there's confidentiality between lawyer and client, but I don't know what lawyers do in this situation.

Years since I've turned my mind to this (all my clients are innocent you see). But iirc you can't ask questions or lead evidence inconsistent with what they've told you. That may have changed.

As a matter of practicality, it's nigh impossible. Your position is untenable.

 

[Xuhaib]

He doesn't have to explain anything. He doesn't have to say anything. The prosecution has to prove it.

If he chooses two he gets in a world of pain because the first thing I'd ask him us wtf he was doing deliberately costing his team runs and didn't he think to question his captain.

If he says it was a coincidence, all you can do is suggest tot him it wasn't, and he says "it was".

Trust me on this mate, I've been there.

Beyond reasonable doubt is a high standard to meet. People know no balls happen, and coincidences happen. If he admits he did it at someone else's behest, he eliminates part of the doubt, and leaves himself open to all sorts of other lines of questioning.

giving away runs as a tactic has been in the game forever don't the captains give away single to the established batsman so they can bowl to tailenders?

The batsman is coming down the track to negate the swing one way to put him back is to bowl an effort ball to keep him back ofcourse when you are striving for pace there are more chances to overstep, this is an argument which Asif can easily use also there have been very recent cases of captains asking a bowler to bowl a noball as part of a game plan all things can work in his favour.

 

[four_or_six]

Years since I've turned my mind to this (all my clients are innocent you see). But iirc you can't ask questions or lead evidence inconsistent with what they've told you. That may have changed.

As a matter of practicality, it's nigh impossible. Your position is untenable.

Thanks, I understand now.

 

[Burgey]

giving away runs as a tactic has been in the game forever don't the captains give away single to the established batsman so they can bowl to tailenders?

The batsman is coming down the track to negate the swing one way to put him back is to bowl an effort ball to keep him back ofcourse when you are striving for pace there are more chances to overstep, this is an argument which Asif can easily use also there have been very recent cases of captains asking a bowler to bowl a noball as part of a game plan all things can work in his favour.

It was the first morning of a test match!

Ok, here's how it goes..

"Mr drug taking, previously dodgy match fixer, why did you bowl the no ball?"

"It was an accident. I was striving for a bit of extra pace".

"Your captain or anyone else tell you to?"

"No"

"I suggest they did"

"No".

Or

"yes my captain told me to"

"did you aak him why?"

"no"
Cue questions about:

1. The state of the game
2. Why he didn't ask him
3. Did it strike you as suspicious?
4. Here's a video of you and your captain disagreeing over field placings, yet you just decided to bowl a mo ball.
5. Here's the video of the bloke saying he'd tell the captain to get you to bowl a no ball, you admit your captain said he told you, but you expect is to believe:
a. You didn't question why
b. You weren't in on it and didn't know.
6. Out of interest, when did he tell you to do it? Before the game or on the field?

And on and on it goes.

It's too cute by half to run the "he told me but I thought X. Just deny it ffs.

 

[fredfertang]

But there's no hard-and-fast rule that says you can't represent them any more? I've always wondered because I know there's confidentiality between lawyer and client, but I don't know what lawyers do in this situation.

You can't continue to represent someone who wants you to advance a positive case that is contrary to what they have told you happened - if all they want you to do is put the prosecution to proof then that's fine - well that's what the books and the mealy mouthed academics tell you - of course in the real world it's seldom that clear cut

 

[fredfertang]

It was the first morning of a test match!

I think Xuhaib has a point though - it could well happen eg Strauss is about to bring Swann on for a twirl before lunch so he wants Broad to make sure that he gives the left hander a single (or 3) so Swanny can have a go at him

 

[Burgey]

I think Xuhaib has a point though - it could well happen eg Strauss is about to bring Swann on for a twirl before lunch so he wants Broad to make sure that he gives the left hander a single (or 3) so Swanny can have a go at him

Bowling a no ball doesn't guarantee a change of strike. A half volley on leg stump is more likely to

It's not about tactics on the field here mate, it's about the best tactics in court.

Deny. Deny. Deny.

Simpler and more plausible. How many coincidences are there in cricket? Unless they can prove a link between the taped conversation and him knowing about it, there's a decent shot at reasonable doubt. If he admits he was told to do it, he puts himself closer to the transaction.

 

[Athlai]

Bowling a no ball doesn't guarantee a change of strike. A half volley on leg stump is mote likely to

A no-ball half volley making best of both worlds?