ZIMMERMAN VERDICT, PART 11: RATING THE LAWYERS (DEFENSE)

Backwoods Home ^ | 08/04/13 | Massad Ayoob

[Sopater]

Watching the Zimmerman trial in 2013 was like watching the OJ Simpson trial in 1995: while the general public got a hell of an education on how these things work thanks to live TV trial coverage, those “in the business” were assessing the skills and strategies of the key players.

The face of the defense was that of a two-man team, Mark O’Mara and Don West. The general consensus was that they did a helluva good job, and that O’Mara was the best lawyer in the courtroom during that trial. Some criticized him for not being harsher on some witnesses; I respectfully disagree. When the jurors finally tell their stories in full detail, I think you’ll find that his gentility scored big points with them. The jury figures out early in the trial that the lawyers are the Alphas and the witnesses are the Betas in the cross-examination dialogue…they tend to identify more with the “ordinary people” witnesses than with the “power-figure” lawyers…and they consciously or subconsciously resent those who bully the witnesses called by the opposing side. O’Mara got his points across without brutalizing anyone called by the state.

[Sopater]

Yeah, I must admit, I was pretty worried there when West opened with the knock-knock joke.

I'm also going to post Ayoob's analysis of the prosecution team.

[Responsibility2nd]

O’Mara got his points across without brutalizing anyone called by the state.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yeah. How he could question Rachel Jeantel without laughing at how utterly stupid she was took a great deal of fortitude.

He treated her with kindness, courtesy and respect. I would have burst out laughing at the responses she gave.

[Gay State Conservative]

To me the lawyers made no difference whatsoever.The evidence,on both sides,could have been compiled by a computer and printed out for the jury.One guy was dead.The other guy's head...and face...were split wide open.The only injury the dead guy had was a single gunshot wound.A licensed physician testified that the dead guy had marijuana in his system at a level that could have affected his thinking and actions.Witnesses said that the guy in red was on the bottom getting the tar beaten out of him...by means of a concrete sidewalk.

Self defense."If the head was split,you must acquit".But unlike in the GZ case,OJ had no discernible injuries on him that might have justified him in decapitating the mother of his children.

[Sacajaweau]

I think the young lady blurted out much more than anyone dreamed she would...like the cracker thing.

I'm absolutely certain that the prosecution never dreamed she would say anything like that.

She was the one that really set the scene....explicitly corroborating that Tray snuck up on George and took the first punch.

I think her brain got stuck on "following"....and the prosecutor feeding her to make sure she used that word. Unfortunately, she made additional connections to the word in George's favor.

[Responsibility2nd]

At the time of her testimony there was a thread or two with excerprts from Tweets and Facebook postings from punks and ghetto rats like her.

Messages were like; “(Bleep) - dat b—— done gone and f-— up the case. She so stupid. She iggernant. Ho ain’t doing us no favors...” and other similar type of observations.

They knew. Even though they are no better - no smarter than she is.... they knew enough to realize she blew the prosecutions case.

[Sopater]

To me the lawyers made no difference whatsoever.

As for the prosecution, I have to agree. However, there are a great deal of things that the defense could have done wrong that may have cost them the case regardless of the lack of incriminating evidence and the preponderance of evidence that seemed to exonerate him. GZ needed a defense that would keep the jury focused on the facts and the evidence.