General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Did the prosecution in the Zimmerman trial "throw the case?" [View all]TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)And they had plenty to work with. Though Guy and the 3rd prosecutor whose name I still haven't figured out did a good job, but Bernie in particular was a mess. Though the jurors may have found him silly and even a buffoon at times, at least that's not something that's really annoying or would reflect badly on the case itself. Though de la Rionda is supposed to have a long and distinguished record in my eyes he just belly flopped on this case in a number of ways that at least thankfully his second and third chair were good enough to mostly clean up.
Despite the job that prosecution did as a whole, I think they still made the lies clear and that the evidence speaks for itself for at least manslaughter. However, they could have done a MUCH better job hitting on every one of the lies, clarifying of points particularly important ones. They (meaning Bernie) did unfortunately waste time and energy arguing things that did not matter like who was on top and who the screams sounded like they belonged to. It never mattered which one was one top, and the only way for the jurors to be able to decide who the screams belonged to was not what it sounded like but the fact that the screams abruptly stopped after the gunshot and that though they were continuous Zimmerman claimed that he was being smothered and therefore wouldn't have been able to scream.
The defense fortunately was terrible. O'Mara came off as a condescending smarmy snake oil salesman that was ridiculously transparent and West came off as a ghastly annoying bully. They repeatedly angered the judge, and jurors notice such things. Jurors also don't like being talked down to as though they're stupid and don't like seeing witnesses talked down to that way either... particularly female jurors who have been talked down to and marginalized as inherently stupid all their lives. I have no doubt that whatever each juror thinks of the case itself that they despise both defense counsel, and in some degree that always rubs off on their client. O'Mara in particular made many amateur mistakes. The longer he went on and on pointing out every little smudge, dink and speck on on Zimmerman's face and head the more he made it clear that his injuries were insignificant. He also made the colossal mistake of continually interjecting possible reasons for every little detail that had nothing to do with what his client claimed and were very often contradictory. This served to only highlight Zimmerman's lies and only served to make even more ridiculous the more ludicrous ones. Saying "couldn't this have been what happened" when it's not what your client said what happened and is even contradictory to what your client said happened ain't helping your client.
And O'Mara's standing up and tucking in his shirt by jamming his arm down his pants to the elbow was disgusting especially when he kept doing it while not wearing his suit jacket. Gross, but at least not as gross as the defense attorney in the Arias case constantly shoving his finger up his nostril on national tv. I don't think I'll see anything that will out-gross that. Now hear this gentlemen: when on national tv and especially in a court of law in front of a jury don't do gross things like shove your finger up your nose or tuck in your shirt by jamming your arm down your pants up to the elbow, and for heaven's sake don't do it standing up with your front facing a jury especially a jury full of women.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):