Hi Websleuths,
I don't know about you, but I have been glued to the livestream of the Jodi Arias trial online and I've been watching the prosecutor Juan Martinez grill Jodi Arias all morning. I admit that he is a breath of fresh air and a shot of energy after the lethargic pace of defense attorney and possible teddy bear Kirk Nurmi. But still, I have some issues with Martinez' approach.
Btw, the best live stream I have seen so far is Wild About Trial. They have the documents, a live reporter in the courtroom tweeting, and all the background info for reference while you watch.
http://wildabouttrial.com/videos/jodi-arias-live-stream/
I am a criminal defense attorney in California, which of course doesn't make my opinions correct but it does provide some exposure to different styles of prosecutors. I generally think Martinez is doing a great job of presenting Jodi's inconsistent testimony and developing the persona of Jodi as a jealous ex-lover.
However, I have two primary critiques about his cross-examination thus far. One is stylistic and one is tactical:
First, he has a very abrasive tone and tends to come off as too aggressive and almost violent. He looks sometimes like a junkyard dog about to be let off the chain. It can be effective to be forceful and put Jodi on the defensive, but with his level of intensity he risks losing the jury. The defense only needs to get one juror to avoid a conviction, and the more Martinez viciously attacks her the more sympathy a juror may have for Jodi. He can ask the same questions without always having his fangs out.
Second, he is jumping around way too much in his questioning. In my opinion he should be methodically going through all of Jodi's lies and inconsistent statements. Instead he is skipping around from one time to the next so that it's difficult for the jury to follow along. Jurors may be understanding that Jodi wasn't telling the truth, but Martinez is making it difficult for them to put those lies within the context of the narrative.
This is only day 1 of the cross-examination, and I am really interested to see what happens next.
How does everyone else feel about the testimony so far?