I mean, I can understand that lawyers want to win. They’re invested in the case of course. Having said that, I cant imagine that Prince believes his client to be innocent. Prince knew what he had, which was nothing (in terms of ‘some other guy did it’). He had to know that Santos wasn’t going to win this case. Neither was Angel Avila Quinnones who was out of the country or in prison when this crime occurred! I mean, he HAD to know the jury would not buy that bull crap. So why was he so shocked? Like I said before it was the 8-4 for acquittal poll from the 1st trial. That made him arrogant and he lost perspective. And he clearly didn’t factor in that Santos testifying would ERASE the whole cartel angle. Maybe he was hoping Santos would pull the same trick and plead the 5th again. Creating reasonable doubt.
His argument at closing was that even if the jury doesn’t believe Santos they have to consider it and that state has to disprove it. And if state doesn’t disprove it then it’s reasonable doubt. Well as Fuchs clarified that’s not how it works. Jury gets to determine credibility of all evidence in the same manner including defense evidence.
Prince said jury has to give the benefit of doubt to the defendant. Which is true but it has to be a plausible or reasonable doubt. He HAD to know Santos was faaaaaar from that. Jury is not required to FORCE doubt. Even Washington doesn’t cause pause even if he had testified. Prince was basically banking on jury being so confused that they’d just give up and vote NG. Hence, spaghetti to the wall strategy. Then he had the nerve to be angry at jury. Lol. Gimme a break! Sometimes I feel like defense lawyers just put on a good act!
I’m sure it was Segura’s idea to testify. Narcissists can’t help themselves. And that’s what sunk him in the end. Narcissists and sociopaths take the stand and REMOVE ALL DOUBT! Segura made up a lie on the spot on the stand about how the female officer was calling him and harassing him and that he told her he was there that night! Come on!!!! Every time he talked about sex he smirked. He came off like the creep that he is. He sealed the conviction. No question. This was always a case of Segura v. Segura.
WHAT AN EXTRA, EXTRA, EXTRADIONARY POST
Prince underestimated the intelligence of the jury. I for one would have been insulted. Total jury alienation. Once you see through the lies what is left? The EVIDENCE (and yes, people circumstantial counts). The prosecutor meticulously exposed lies, debunked experts, and presented an accurate timeline.
I did a silent cheer when Fuchs clarified reasonable doubt. I thought it was the best explanation I have seen at trial; ironically, he was able to use Prince’s own words to do so.
There is a certain amount of conceit on both parties, defense lawyers and narcissist sociopathic clients. I get it, it is your job, but boy how would you sleep at night if your client got off? Probably basking in the spotlight, touring all the crime channels. I agree with everyone the sulkiness is apparent. You lost. Your dreams of being the next Jose Baez have been dashed. I am sorry you were paid half your normal rate. You will soon drop HS like a hot potato. Let’s see how fast that motion to withdraw as counsel hits the court docket. 10, 9, 8, 7…..the countdown begins, it is probably being drafted as I type.
I am disgusted by this trend of trial delays and utterly unbelievable theories.
I do think this case became a runaway train (Santos motive) early on. There were at least 7 Judges before Hankinson took the reins, I am sure making it near impossible to un-do any previous rulings on “evidence” i.e. testimony from nutso attention seeking jail birds being allowed.
I will be disappointed if death is not the outcome as all criteria is met. Bracing myself for any "mitigating" factors presented, I hate listening to that BS, but betting HG won't allow any, he will maintain his innocence until his last breath. I anticipate a short deliberation tomorrow.
