(no subject)
1. The Closing
It's pretty sad to think that the only significant thing I did for the last three weeks is watch the Zimmerman trial. But I guess that's a perk of working from home. I can do whatever I want during the day. I am glad that it's all wrapping up though because I need to get back to putting my nose to the grindstone and churning out work for my clients. Still, the trial came at a time when I needed a brake. I just finished some big projects that had me working around the clock for the past four months. So hanging out and enjoying the theatrics of the trial was a needed rest. Usually, when I have down time, I just watch a bunch of Netflix movies back-to-back. So, this was pretty similar.
The closing statements were interesting. I was actually a little bit disappointed by the state's closing. In some ways, I liked that O'Mara focused on the burden of proof that the jury needed to evaluate. I also liked that he addressed the emotional factor of the case explicitly. But my biggest problem was that I didn't feel that he was clear enough when he was talking about connecting the dots or making assumptions. I also think that at times, he seemed a bit pompous, which might backfire. I don't know that telling the jury that they have to find his client not guilty is such a good thing. I also think that while the prosecution did a good job of explaining why Martin might be in fear of Zimmerman, O'Mara completely glossed over any effort to explain Zimmerman's frame of mind. If I were Zimmerman, I would not feel confident about the verdict following O'Mara's presentation.
After watching this trial, I actually do feel that the system is subtly set up against the defendant. I mean, why on earth does the state get a second rebuttal? I recall in high school debate, it was always the affirmative who got the first and last word, but in debate, you're being evaluated by judges who are trained to understand the affirmative's burden of proof. It just seems that by giving the prosecution a second round, it allows them a second swing at manipulating a jury before they deliberate. While everyone is raving over Guy's performance, I think that he was inappropriately overdramatic. If I were in a closed room, and someone delivered on over-the-top speech like that to me, I would have trouble holding in my laughter. But I think that most people are moved by speeches like that.
So after O'Mara's speech, I have even less confidence that Zimmerman will be acquitted. I feel that he didn't really give Zimmerman the defense he needed. Actually, for most of this case, it seems that O'Mara was always cautious in his representation of Zimmerman. He didn't want to declare his innocence until they approached trial. He never really vigorously stood up for Zimmerman in the media. I think West is the only one I've seen get passionate about defending Zimmerman. But who knows whether he would've fared better with different attorneys. I think he's probably going to end up getting convicted, which is sort of unfortunate, considering that the prosecution's case is not very strong.
It's pretty sad to think that the only significant thing I did for the last three weeks is watch the Zimmerman trial. But I guess that's a perk of working from home. I can do whatever I want during the day. I am glad that it's all wrapping up though because I need to get back to putting my nose to the grindstone and churning out work for my clients. Still, the trial came at a time when I needed a brake. I just finished some big projects that had me working around the clock for the past four months. So hanging out and enjoying the theatrics of the trial was a needed rest. Usually, when I have down time, I just watch a bunch of Netflix movies back-to-back. So, this was pretty similar.
The closing statements were interesting. I was actually a little bit disappointed by the state's closing. In some ways, I liked that O'Mara focused on the burden of proof that the jury needed to evaluate. I also liked that he addressed the emotional factor of the case explicitly. But my biggest problem was that I didn't feel that he was clear enough when he was talking about connecting the dots or making assumptions. I also think that at times, he seemed a bit pompous, which might backfire. I don't know that telling the jury that they have to find his client not guilty is such a good thing. I also think that while the prosecution did a good job of explaining why Martin might be in fear of Zimmerman, O'Mara completely glossed over any effort to explain Zimmerman's frame of mind. If I were Zimmerman, I would not feel confident about the verdict following O'Mara's presentation.
After watching this trial, I actually do feel that the system is subtly set up against the defendant. I mean, why on earth does the state get a second rebuttal? I recall in high school debate, it was always the affirmative who got the first and last word, but in debate, you're being evaluated by judges who are trained to understand the affirmative's burden of proof. It just seems that by giving the prosecution a second round, it allows them a second swing at manipulating a jury before they deliberate. While everyone is raving over Guy's performance, I think that he was inappropriately overdramatic. If I were in a closed room, and someone delivered on over-the-top speech like that to me, I would have trouble holding in my laughter. But I think that most people are moved by speeches like that.
So after O'Mara's speech, I have even less confidence that Zimmerman will be acquitted. I feel that he didn't really give Zimmerman the defense he needed. Actually, for most of this case, it seems that O'Mara was always cautious in his representation of Zimmerman. He didn't want to declare his innocence until they approached trial. He never really vigorously stood up for Zimmerman in the media. I think West is the only one I've seen get passionate about defending Zimmerman. But who knows whether he would've fared better with different attorneys. I think he's probably going to end up getting convicted, which is sort of unfortunate, considering that the prosecution's case is not very strong.