The fact that in most all litigation, one party "wins" and one party "loses" creates an inherent competition between the litigants and their attorneys.
Criminal cases are slightly different because mixed verdicts could be construed as a win or loss for the state or defendant, depending. Either way, after a jury verdict in a criminal case one party will declare victory in some way.
Like it or not, the U.S system of justice is based on adverserial parties presenting their cases before a court and/or jury in an effort to "win" their case.
Litigation is a high-stakes intellectual game of poker played in the Casino of Justice. If you want to be in the arena, you better know how to play the game, or you will likely get your hat handed to you.
Litigating any high profile case is difficult. Way more difficult then most people would think. You have to do an entire song and dance with the facts, law, rules of evidence, strategy, media, and every other unknown issue that pops up during the case. Add to this most "good litigators" including defense attorneys and prosecutors have many other cases they are dealing with.
At the end of the day, regardless of who they represent, all great litigators are zeolous advocates for their clients who do their best to win the case.
The biggest problem with the U.S. justice system, IMO, especially in the criminal law side, is the lack of quality attorneys for some defendants, especially those that are indigent.
One thing that seems certain in this case is that the defendant is adequatley represented by counsel and thus one of the more common issues on appeal is taken off the table before jury selection even starts...IMO
