Trial style

I have a few more observations about the trial I watched for the past 3-4 weeks. First, the defense team introduced the 911 tapes. Counterintuitive, isn't it? But it's the most dramatic piece of evidence in a courtroom. On Friday, at the close of the defense case, they played the 911 tapes. I've heard worse - like a mother screaming into the phone when she saw that her 3 year old child got shot in the head - absolutely chilling. But this one was mostly reported by people who heard shots on the street, people who didn't see anything, or couldn't see anything. Then there was the one phone call where the woman said, "No, I can't see anyone hurt - wait - ohmygod, there's someone lying in the street. There's a man lying in the street!" and as the woman's voice continued to reflect what it's like to realize, and see, that someone was shot dead, everyone looked at the deceased's wife. She had her left hand on the side of her face, and she was crying, quietly. By herself. The defendants have wonderful support in their family - but the widow, with only a few family members around her, cried alone. Listening to the tape, seeing one of the defendants cry, seeing the widow cry, and watching the defendants' family watch her, tears came to my eyes. I couldn't stop wondering why people do this to each other. I've heard a lot of testimony on how a firearm works - what a round of ammunition is, how it is ignited and projected, the difference between a revolver and a semi-automatic, . It all sounds so cold and scientific. But this is what it is. It's a widow, two defendants, and two families changed forever. Why do human beings do this to each other? How are people capable of such brutal and violent acts on one another? Why doesn't anyone care? Sitting in the packed-full courtroom listening to that one woman's voice describe the man lying alone in the middle of the street, seeing defendant and victim's wife cry, I closed my eyes and wished away all the guns in the world. Anything capable of doing that much harm to a human being makes me ill. I wish handguns were never invented. No one benefits. And the idea of arming everyone (CDog)? Bad idea. The defense story in this case is that everyone WAS armed - and someone died. The prosecution's story is that the defendants and one friend of the victim's were armed - but still, someone's dead. It solved nothing at all. For a moment, I felt the agony in the room - a single bullet through the chest, hemorrhaging, fatality. Not copper, lead, and gunpowder, but a father, brother, son, husband gone forever, and two defendants and two families that will never be the same again.

My second comment is to the styles of the attorneys in the case. In the beginning, one defense attorney annoyed me so much that I could hardly stand to sit through his questioning. The other defense attorney I'd seen before, and I thought his style was fine. That's all changed now, at the end. The second defense attorney is either a terrible actor or completely unhinged. He's very smart - I admire his strategies and his legal skill. But he YELLS. He seems to yell when he's making a point - but not because he got riled up to the point. He will just suddenly and without warning start shrieking. It's very disconcerting, very made-for-TV courtroom drama. It makes me quite uncomfortable. I watched him on a few occasions yell at the judge during motions hearings on the case, and I watched him get in a yelling argument with one of the prosecution's witnesses, while the witness was on the stand, in front of the jury, for quite some time. If I were that judge, I would've shut that man down within the first five minutes. I thought the attorney was being disrespectful by yelling like that. Again, it wasn't that he worked himself up through an argument, but he was just yelling at the judge. If I had been in the black robe, I would have said quietly and firmly, "Excuse me, Mr. {yelling attorney}. this is my courtroom and I have no tolerance for such behavior. I do not yell at you during the course of your job and would appreciate that you not yell at me in the course of mine. For the sake of your client I would suggest that you pull yourself the fuck together, sit down, and shut up, or leave my courtroom."

For instance, after he admitted the 911 tapes into evidence, he realized that it included the dispatch recording as well, which he didn't want in evidence (because it was prejudicial to his client). He started glaring at everyone in the courtroom and shrieked, "I WILL NOT BE TRICKED!" Turns out, the prosecutor stated that he didn't see why the tapes needed to be replaced with the one of just the 911 recording - it had already been admitted into evidence, no need to change it now. The defense attorney LOST IT. He screamed at the judge, grew red-faced, was practically foaming at the mouth. The judge firmly insisted that the attorney calm down, take a breath, no need for him to get so upset because it would interfere with his closing argument. [For the judge to be that assertive is significant - he seems to be a pretty mellow judge]. To which the attorney, still either pretending to be in an utter rage or really being an absolute NUT, paced frantically and said loudly and emphatically, "Yes you're right, judge, this absolutely will inhibit my ability to deliver my closing argument." The prosecutor got up and basically said, if he's going to throw a fit like that, replace the fucking tape, for the love of Christ. Then the defense attorney sweetly stood up and apologized for his outburst. It's the first time I've seen him apologize for it, and clearly his outburst was effective because it got him what he wanted, but sweet lord. I think his credibility with the jury, certainly with me, would be much better if he stopped shooting for the daytime Emmy. It's not difficult to get the sense, when he randomly starts shrieking, that it's an act, that it's insincere. I think he's a very clever attorney, but the yelling... Please. Stop. I certainly learned what kind of style I'd like to [not] develop myself. I wonder how much of it is done for his client and the client's large family watching the trial - it demonstrates to them that he's zealous, certainly. Perhaps he's trying to make them feel like they're getting their money's worth.

Third, a juror slipped the judge a note with a question. The prosecution offered one rebuttal witness - the detective on the case - to rebut the defense expert's testimony. There were just a few rebuttal questions, but the juror noticed that the detective had been in the courtroom during the expert's testimony and asked the judge about it. The judge addressed the issue with the attorneys. The prosecutor stated that he sensed the juror felt like detective had an unfair advantage, and could the judge just give a general response about the fact that there are some circumstances in which the sequestration isn't necessary. The defense attorneys stated nonchalantly that they didn't see a reason for the judge to respond. And he didn't. Then the Yeller used it in his closing - something like, "Well Detective XY sat here through Expert's testimony and then came back to say..." Oooooh. Playing on the jury's doubts like that... dirty, dirty, dirty. I don't think I would've thought to use it in a closing, but you can bet I'll be doing that if the occasion ever arises.

Fourth, there has to be a conflict of interest here. One defendant is more culpable than the other, but the defense didn't address that issue at all. Perhaps because it's clear - one defendant shot and the other didn't - and they are both facing the same charges. But it seems as though this could be detrimental to the defense of the less culpable defendant. And actually, the more culpable defendant testified, and his testimony contradicted a prosecution's witness that was favorable to the co-defendant. Ouch. The Yeller took care a lot of the expert and police investigation parts of the case, and the other attorney did more of the issues with factual witnesses and their credibility. They even divided it up like that in closings. I am sure that the defendants and the defendants' family wouldn't want it otherwise, but really, the less culpable defendant could potentially be getting the shit end here. I think the attorneys did a great job of balancing, to the extent possible, the conflicts and [presumed] wishes of their clients, but wow. I don't even know how it's possible to resolve a conflict like that.

Now we wait for the verdict. I would really like to be in the courtroom when it happens, because it will no doubt be very, very dramatic.