I don't beleive the jury is going to care what the demeanor of the lawyers was in evaluating the evidence. I know I wouldn't.
But, let me explain something I experienced after reading deposistions. When you read a transcript its almost impossible to detect the tones, the hesistations etc that you hear during it.
Actually, it is very appropriate to consider the demeanor of the players in a trial as part of the testimony. This is the very reason that on appeal, the opinion of the finders of fact (i.e. the jury in this case) are given great weight.
All this said, if the jury comes back with a jury verdict, an appeals court could very well reverse any conviction and either order a new trial or grant an outright acquittal. There simply does not seem to be enough evidence that would permit a reasonable person to conclude that DW committed the crime without making the decision based on emotion.