[VadeRetro]

That looks like a good analysis. No question the plaintiffs made a fine case and the summation was a crusher. The response by comparison is bound to look fragmented and lacking in focus.

But I also think we have a skills mismatch here and ID got outgunned.

[longshadow]

That looks like a good analysis. No question the plaintiffs made a fine case and the summation was a crusher. The response by comparison is bound to look fragmented and lacking in focus.

I was especially impressed by the way the defense summation skipped over the perjury of its own clients. That will impress the judge favorably.

[AntiGuv]

But I also think we have a skills mismatch here and ID got outgunned.

Seems a bit more like a credibility mismatch to me. The lawyer doesn't have much choice but to work with what he's given, and ID doesn't have much to give..

[PatrickHenry]

I also think we have a skills mismatch here and ID got outgunned.

It can look that way, but the lawyer with the better case will usally appear to be the better lawyer. It certainly helps when he really is better.

To some extent I think the Thomas Moore lawyers were "too close" to the case. The cause of the school board was also the law firm's cause. They actually believe in ID. They may have a genuine blind spot that prevents them from realizing how weak their case really looks.

Of course, it all depends on this judge now. He's human, and he has blind spots too. We'll see how it works out. The newly-elected school board has said, I think, that if they lose they won't appeal. So that may be the end of it. But if they win ...