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.
Don West was co-counsel in the truest sense of the term: he was O’Mara’s partner in the battle, not his sidekick. West’s long career in criminal defense practice has made him a master of caselaw and rules of evidence. But he also knows how to handle witnesses. Those who wanted a conviction complained that he was hard on Rachel Jeantel, the inarticulately angry young woman who had been speaking with Trayvon Martin just before the fight in which he was shot. I must profoundly disagree. He could have gone MUCH harder… and come across as a bully. He came across, instead, as the avuncular older man who just couldn’t get what she was saying, and let the jury come to their own conclusion that she was confessing to multiple lies.
West got a lot of crap about the “knock-knock” joke he used early in the defense’s opening statement, and clueless talking heads will mention that for as long as the case is discussed. The lightweights also said that he spent too much time on details of the defense case in that opening. But for as long as people like me teach Continuing Legal Education courses on trial tactics in self-defense cases, West will be better remembered for laying out the defense’s key elements in detail at the beginning of trial, so that each time one of the state’s witnesses spouted BS from the stand, the jury had the defense’s theory of the case to compare it to, and could recognize the BS when they heard it.
Of course, when you rate the players, you have to look at both teams…and we’ll discuss the other team next. (Spoiler alert: they were more skilled than the trial made them appear.)
I’ll be curious what your take was on the prosecution, but it seemed to me they were doing a decent job making the most of what was basically an un-winnable trial. The talking heads said the prosecution screwed up, but don’t realize a verdict was basically unattainable.
I finally took the time to go and watch the YT video of that opener/Knock-knock joke. Harmless as a heel-hound! The MSM had me believing West was an idiot. My own eyes and ears say, no.
Thanks for the article/s and insights!
west’s opening statement was excellent. minus 1 or 2 hiccups it described precisely “what the evidence will show” in a time line that allowed the jury to go back and connect the dots as the evidence came up during the trial.
the knock-knock joke is a great example of the media bias and its focus on the wrong and trivial. the joke lasted what, 20 seconds? the opening statement was 2h 40m? that is minuscule. i recall watching TV that day and the newscasters spent 2-3 minutes discussing the joke; and that was pretty much the entire _news_ regarding the defense’s opening statement. at the time i was not following the trial and i remember getting the impression that if that’s how the defense started, then how good can the rest of their case be? i imagine that impression worked exactly as intended for the average viewer.
Couldn’t agree more! Also a key feature was the, IMHO, obvious hostility the judge showed towards the defense. The verbal jousting between Mr. West and Her Highness became a sideshow in itself. Would love to hear your take on the issue and your opinion of her (lack of) neutrality.
Excellent as usual. I don’t know why West told the joke. but I bet he does.
“Both teams?” IMHO there are three teams in a trial like this one, Defense, Offense, and the System.
I’ve come to see O’Mara’s subdued appeal to the jury’s rational side as a smart move, especially addressing an all-female jury. This said, this layman will nitpick:
– O’Mara’s delivery was irritating and confusing at times. I drifted in and out during his closing arguments when I should’ve been riveted. He sounded unsure and indecisive, often correcting himself. How could he even repeat the prosecution’s words that he had a “burden of proving” anything? Or say things such as, “if I had to show you this, although the law says I don’t, but if I did…” when it came to the amount of Zimmerman’s injuries, for example. It was like he went where the prosecution took him when they had no grounds to begin with.
Proving was the prosecution’s job, while his was to raise doubts and point to the huge holes in their so-called case. O’Mara comes across as a nice guy inclined to see the other person’s point of view, but after a pitbull like de la Rionda I frankly thought he had blown it.
– I liked West’s style better, although he did seem to get lost in trivial details at times. But although I’m convinced that judge Nelson was biased (someone must’ve kept count of how often she favored the prosecution), West clearly antagonized her unnecessarily, even causing her to walk out on him and forcing O’Mara to tell him to “stop”. Instead of changing tactics during questioning, he would also keep repeating the same question with a different wording and predictably be hit by objection after objection.
I know that the defense must’ve had a ‘good cop – bad cop’ routine going for a reason, but this aggressiveness and stubbornness turned me off at times.
Now, they won so they must’ve done something right! But Zimmerman’s innocence (of murder) was clear as day, wasn’t it? The prosecution’s case was a joke and the evidence largely supported his claims.
The fact that juror B29 (‘Maddy’) was so confused after the trial tells me that what should’ve been explained as an open and shut case of self-defense was not laid out well enough for her.
Now I can’t wait for the PROSECUTION to be picked apart…
All that said… and I agree it was a masterful defense… what was he *thinking* with the knock-knock joke?
I was particularly impressed that, apart from West’s opening joke, they did not express contempt for the prosecution or it’s case against GZ.
They presented a solid defense, sticking to facts.
Arrogant layers turn off jury’s these two were not. The jury identified with them over the arrogance of the prosecutors.
Regarding the ‘knock-knock’ joke…
The night after he told it, some suggested the reason he told it was to basically knock the jury off balance, and he succeeded. After the prosecution’s “powerful” opening statement (a lot of which was BS, but not to the clueless), if not for the knock-knock joke, all you would have seen on TV the next day would have been the prosecution’s “powerful” opening statement.
I kinda bought that theory, until the next day when he mentioned the joke again. If he had never revisited the joke, I would have said mission accomplished, but after bringing it up again the second day, I had to wonder?
I can’t remember the show, but after the trial O’Mara and West appeared together, and as the interview was over, the host brought up the joke. West initially didn’t want to say anything, but after appearing a bit irritated that the joke was brought up, he asked if the host wanted to know why he did so? (O’Mara was shaking his head “no”)
West said that he knew he could not follow / match the prosecutor’s opening statement, so he had to “refocus” the jury so they would completely put his opening statement out of mind.
One thing that O’Mara did not push was a gated community is private property. You, as a home owner, have the right to ask anyone who walks through your yard what are they doing there. Zimmerman had every right to question anyone he didn’t know. All Martin had to say was that he was visiting
his Dads girl friend, give the name and address and Zimmerman would have checked the community directory to confirm the address and Martin would have been on his way.
After the trial, the persecution said the jury was wrong! She was not immediately disbarred, so all the lawyers in the state agree with her.
Huh? It means if I am called to jury duty NO MATTER WHAT I must vote “not guilty!”
The quality of Florida courts and prosecution having been defined by the State Attorney.
Geoff
Who is honest.
I’m afraid most have fallen into the medias hysteria over the knock-knock joke. I believe the Mr. West knew very well that the jurors would have to have been in a coma for the past year and a half to have no prior knowledge of this case and they, like the rest of the nation had been fed a carefully crafted fantasy of what had transpired that night and a politically correct depiction of Zimmerman as a knuckle dragging white racist who couldn’t wait to kill a black person. The mainstream media had pushed this line since the beginning. Mr. West, knowing this, wanted to get the jurors attention(and the viewing public), so they would pay attention to the facts, not the propaganda, that would finally be revealed without being twisted or fabricated by the press. Ill advised, maybe, but the defense was successful, so it could be it offended the press(and many others it seems) more than it did the jury.
I found the trial riveting. I had to work but could use
my Droid phone to catch the drama occasionally. I used up half a months worth of allocated data downloads in 1week!
On the last day before closing arguments the judge asked GZ if he was going to testify, but would not allow him to consult with counsel. I didn’t get why she insisted, West repeatedly objected and she repeatedly overruled him.
I think GZ embellished his account of what happened to put himself in a better light.
I don’t believe that he had to get out of his vehicle to look for a street sign. I have been in Sanford and know that there are a lot of gated communities and their roads are a nightmare to traverse as they circle around a lot. Still, this was his neighborhood.
Off topic Mas, but what is your professional opinion on the 10mm round for personal defense?
The “persecution.” I’ll use that one someday. Here, I don’t know that I would use it to mean the prosecution. Actually, when the prosecution appeared on tv together to say they were satisfied that the outcome was fairly reached, I thought they were sort of noble, not bad at all. I wanted to applaud them. They did their job as thoroughly as they could, and Zimmerman made it through all that scrutiny. I was so pleased with them.
@a crime watch coordinator: I agree. When I was a teenager I was challenged if I was on someone else’s property, particularly at night. Even if the challenger was unnecessarily rude, I had no right to launch a violent assault on them for it.
I should add that I am white. I got challenged anyway. Although it irritated me at the time, I know now that it was not only the homeowner’s right but also perfectly sensible. Young males are generally natural troublemakers!
@basicblur: So essentially, what you’re saying is that he used the Chewbacca defense? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense
West used an old debaters tactic by telling the knock knock joke. The prosecution had just spent over two hours, putting on a very verbose and histrionic performance. When West told the knock knock joke, it erased most of the preceding statements from the juror’s minds, giving West a clean slate to write the defense’s statements.
West said as much himself, in the press conference right after the verdict was given. He was asked about the joke, and replied, “I had to disconnect the jurors from the act, and it was an act, that the prosecution had just put on.”
I’ve sometimes heard this tactic referred to as “cognitive reset”. Politicians use it sometimes, also. It’s like asking, after your opponent has presented their point, “how many pancakes can you fit in a kayak? It’s so absurd, the audience forgets what the preceding speaker has just said.
It worked well for Don West. Everyone remembers the knock knock joke, but few remember John Guy’s opening statements.