The lawyers in the courtroom have the advantage of knowing who is on the jury, and how they respond to different things during the course of the trial. They also tend to know the judge a hell of a lot better than some dope weighing in on his web camera a thousand miles away.
The problem with endless objections is that if you are sitting on the jury you have to ask what facts are being hidden from me here. It’s one thing to object to lies by the prosecutor, and another to try to keep info from the jury.
I watch Reiki Law live discussions, and I appreciated the insights, but I couldn't stand the snarky commentary. When I listened to the live trial, there were times when I - a non-lawyer - was screaming "Object!". I also thought it would be hard, if not impossible, for Kyle to get a unanimous verdict. Regardless of how he got there, there could have been no better result. The unanimous jury was better than a mistrial, even a mistrial with prejustice, because that would have left some feeling Kyle would have been found guilty without judicial intervention. The fact that the with prejustice motion was kept open left that escape hatch.
Richards did a great job, and he stuck to the defense, he didn't get involved in the sideshow, although I thought there might have been some behind the scenes PR. I was also astonished that they had at least 2 mock juries to test out legal theories on, I thought that only happened on TV!
Watching Richards interviewed after the trial, the plain, deadpan delievery, I thought "This guy is the Bill Belichick of the legal world."