I work from home now so I am able to trial watch online, which is a hobby of mine. I have seen a lot of trials over the years and I have to tell you that was one of the messiest openings I have ever seen in such a high profile trial. It baffles me, really. The joke was both insensitive and out of place. The prosecution, on the other hand, nailed it.
You can't have ineffective counsel based on bad taste. It's hard enough to have legally recognized ineffectiveness based on legal ineffectiveness.
The joke was a horrible mistake, but other than that, how was the opening? It seemed to me the defense made some decent prevues of the evidence. The prosecution seemed to be spot on and off to a very solid start.
It was definitely a calculated tactic, henrik. West refused to bring any emotion into his opening - he stuck to the facts. I would guess, however, that he lost a few of the jurors because of that. The opening is your emotional hook or draw. This is your opportunity to begin connecting with each individual. Based only on the live stream I watch, I'd argue that he failed to do that. But only time will tell
It was definitely a calculation, with the object of trying to get them to clear the slate of everything they've heard about his client and to judge the case solely on what happens in court. And there was the well-intentioned effort to try to take the sting out of the joke and to prevent the jury from using it against Zimmerman if it misfired. While that may have worked, the joke was bad, ineffective, and in very bad taste, with this sour outcome for the defense: reinforcing counsel's credibility with the jury is probably what's most important in opening statements; that and preventing the only interpretation of the evidence being the one they get from the prosecution. Here, you have defense counsel with what seems, from the little I've seen, to have a very nice manner and rapport with the jury; he really blew an opportunity with something as banal as a knock knock joke, a joke which called attention to, rather than distracted, from the elephant in the room he wanted to shield his client from; the pretrial baggage.
People are being obscenely rude about her on HLN's Facebook, though. Calling her a "Hood rat".
I love the comments that say "Every word she's saying is a lie! I can't even understand her. I can't hear a word she says." Then, how do you know it's a lie?
I think her words combined with the defense attorney who is increasingly becoming more annoying to everyone including the judge, is helping the prosecution.
Yes, sir. I forgot about that. But as the jury is instructed, they look at the facts presented. Even though I rolled my eyes when she said that, I don't think the jury will dismiss any of her testimony because of it.