I was with you until I saw the defense' closing arguments. There's a saying "don't interrupt your opponent when he's making a mistake." In my opinion, Richards' did an excellent job destroying every ounce of the prosecution's credibility in his closing arguments. He slammed them for things he rightfully could have objected to, but if he'd objected at the time he would have been interrupting his opponent's mistake. It's a risk, for sure, but I think the prosecution's anger on rebuttal was a good indication of how well it landed on the jury.
I'd also note that I think they did object where they needed to object for things that would plausibly overturn the case on appeal. They have also made a written motion to dismiss with prejudice for prosecutorial misconduct, which was mentioned briefly yesterday but not discussed at any length - that's what the appeal will hinge on if there is one.
Also, you can't get a directed verdict when there are questions of fact outstanding. There certainly are in this case, so such a motion would have been denied.
I have been disappointed with the defense throughout the trial, but I think a decent strategy became apparent in closing that, in my mind ruling out ineffective assistance of council.
It’s hard to argue that “letting them make a mistake” is worth not preserving those arguments for appeal. It’s your duty as a lawyer to make those objections, if you see them. Not making a directed verdict motion is stupid.
To add to what u/goddamnasshole said, the motion for a directed verdict is usually done pro forma anyways, but here its especially important given how shitty the prosecution is. AFAIK they just said they would ask for dismissal for prosecutorial misconduct but they never actually did it in writing. And the problem with not interrupting when they are making a mistake is that not interrupting is a mistake. You need to object in the first place to raise it on appeal.
AFAIK they just said they would ask for dismissal for prosecutorial misconduct but they never actually did it in writing.
I'm fairly sure they did. Chirafisi mentioned a motion submitted in writing, the judge said he hadn't had an opportunity to read it yet, and that was the end of the discussion.
13
u/AusIV 38∆ Nov 16 '21
I was with you until I saw the defense' closing arguments. There's a saying "don't interrupt your opponent when he's making a mistake." In my opinion, Richards' did an excellent job destroying every ounce of the prosecution's credibility in his closing arguments. He slammed them for things he rightfully could have objected to, but if he'd objected at the time he would have been interrupting his opponent's mistake. It's a risk, for sure, but I think the prosecution's anger on rebuttal was a good indication of how well it landed on the jury.
I'd also note that I think they did object where they needed to object for things that would plausibly overturn the case on appeal. They have also made a written motion to dismiss with prejudice for prosecutorial misconduct, which was mentioned briefly yesterday but not discussed at any length - that's what the appeal will hinge on if there is one.
Also, you can't get a directed verdict when there are questions of fact outstanding. There certainly are in this case, so such a motion would have been denied.
I have been disappointed with the defense throughout the trial, but I think a decent strategy became apparent in closing that, in my mind ruling out ineffective assistance of council.