GUILTY FL - Dan Markel, 41, FSU Law Professor, Tallahassee, 18 July 2014 - #8 *arrests*

[Weki]

I can't recall if she even used the words "principal" or "conspiracy" in her closing. That's a major oversight!

 

[Gardenista]

Camera moving

 

[vislaw]

My two cents: Until the verdict is read you can never be certain what is taking place in the deliberation room. Yes, the questions are unsettling, but we don't know if there is a single holdout or a major disagreement between factions. This becomes critical because a hung jury means the prosecution will have the choice whether to have a second trial. Admittedly, odds of conviction decrease on a second trial because the prosecution is largely locked into a theory of the case. However, it is also an opportunity to "fix" the case as well. Consider the second trial of the Menendez brothers. The prosecution analyzed the "doubt" raised by the defense and tailored their evidence accordingly to achieve convictions.

 

[clearskies1]

I can't recall if she even used the words "principal" or "conspiracy" in her closing. That's a major oversight!

Honestly, I also thought GC's cross of KM was way too short. She should have been playing short snippets of the wiretaps and pressing her, pressing her. She should have played the video of Dolce Vita where CA was allegedly showing her the paper and pressed her in front of the jury. JMO.

 

[Weki]

I'd rather a mistrial than a not guilty especially on KM. Then on the second trial they can get a prosecutor with a little more fire in his or her belly.

What I took as confidence in GC is clearly some type of general detachment. I think in comparing her with the defense attys she comes off confident and self-assured and like she's no-nonsense but her closing showed me that I was wrong about her. Her monotone, almost bored affect is off-putting. And presence matters. How you present your case matters.

 

[TTF14]

My two cents: Until the verdict is read you can never be certain what is taking place in the deliberation room. Yes, the questions are unsettling, but we don't know if there is a single holdout or a major disagreement between factions. This becomes critical because a hung jury means the prosecution will have the choice whether to have a second trial. Admittedly, odds of conviction decrease on a second trial because the prosecution is largely locked into a theory of the case. However, it is also an opportunity to "fix" the case as well. Consider the second trial of the Menendez brothers. The prosecution analyzed the "doubt" raised by the defense and tailored their evidence accordingly to achieve convictions.

And the second trial of Sidney Moorer that just took place.

One thing I did not like about Cappleman's closing was how she mentioned several times that she is unliked, has been called corrupt, etc. Why introduce that to the jury? (I wasn't even aware of this).

 

[SeaEclipse]

I actually think in this case that a re-trial of KM would be more likely to result in a conviction. The prosecution clearly didn't expect KM to testify, had no idea what she would say if she did and was not properly prepared to impeach her. They won't make that mistake again. They will also now be able to operate with SG did it as a given (since he'll already be convicted) and will be prepared for KM's weird theory that SG and CA did it together w/ CA dumps KM as SG's payment or whatever that nonsense was. The prosecution didn't have a lot of unexpected evidence against KM; maybe KM can be a bit more prepared for some of the specific cell phone evidence and how the state used it, but that's about it.

 

[TTF14]

I'd rather a mistrial than a not guilty especially on KM. Then on the second trial they can get a prosecutor with a little more fire in his or her belly.

What I took as confidence in GC is clearly some type of general detachment. I think in comparing her with the defense attys she comes off confident and self-assured and like she's no-nonsense but her closing showed me that I was wrong about her. Her monotone, almost bored affect is off-putting. And presence matters. How you present your case matters.

I actually didn't mind her tone. I'd rather her use her normal tone than try to be something she's not

 

[SeaEclipse]

Also, if polling the jury reveals that they were sketched out by none of the Adelsons being charged and that was some of the doubt/hesitation of the "not guilty" faction, the state can decide to charge CA before re-trying KM to eliminate that issue.

 

[Marysmith]

Yes, she seemed blasee. JMO.

Maybe she was feeling too confident...

 

[clearskies1]

I actually think in this case that a re-trial of KM would be more likely to result in a conviction. The prosecution clearly didn't expect KM to testify, had no idea what she would say if she did and was not properly prepared to impeach her. They won't make that mistake again. They will also now be able to operate with SG did it as a given (since he'll already be convicted) and will be prepared for KM's weird theory that SG and CA did it together w/ CA dumps KM as SG's payment or whatever that nonsense was. The prosecution didn't have a lot of unexpected evidence against KM; maybe KM can be a bit more prepared for some of the specific cell phone evidence and how the state used it, but that's about it.

Ugh. You should always assume the defendant will testify and have cross all lined up. Yes, they don't know exactly what the defendant will say, but there were only so many things that KM could have possibly said. They should have been 100% prepared.

 

[fred&edna]

I'm not blaming GC for anything. These jurors are "our peers", and while they may not be WS members/readers, this case has had a huge amount of press coverage - even greater in the state of FL. They had to know a little something about this case before going in... So, they shouldn't need anything more than what she gave them. Jmo

 

[Weki]

I actually didn't mind her tone. I'd rather her use her normal tone than try to be something she's not

She's no Nancy Livesay! My point is that courtroom presence matters. Not that she should change the way she speaks/tone. She can't help how she sounds. But she could've been better prepared in her closing. As another commenter said; she lacked conviction and clarity.

 

[Marysmith]

Honestly, I also thought GC's cross of KM was way too short. She should have been playing short snippets of the wiretaps and pressing her, pressing her. She should have played the video of Dolce Vita where CA was allegedly showing her the paper and pressed her in front of the jury. JMO.

I agree with this.

 

[vislaw]

Also, if polling the jury reveals that they were sketched out by none of the Adelsons being charged and that was some of the doubt/hesitation of the "not guilty" faction, the state can decide to charge CA before re-trying KM to eliminate that issue.

Good point. Would love to see the Adelsons in the dock with KM on trial having already been on record stating she believes Charlie was behind it. In fact, charging the Adelsons and bringing trial against them with KM would be ideal, in my opinion.

 

[Gardenista]

She's no Nancy Livesay! My point is that courtroom presence matters. Not that she should change hers. She can't help how she sounds. But she could've been better prepared in her closing. As another commenter said; she lacked conviction and clarity.

I kept comparing her to NL too.

 

[clearskies1]

I clearly don't know what the issue is with the jury and if it has anything to do with GC. I was just surprised at some of GC's choices in terms of what I've seen in other cases. But I'm sure she had her reasons.

 

[TTF14]

She's no Nancy Livesay! My point is that courtroom presence matters. Not that she should change the way she speaks/tone. She can't help how she sounds. But she could've been better prepared in her closing. As another commenter said; she lacked conviction and clarity.

The first part, before the break, was pretty annoying with the technical problems. It seemed really unrehearsed.

 

[clearskies1]

The first part, before the break, was pretty annoying with the technical problems. It seemed really unrehearsed.

Not what a jury wants/needs when you're seeking a 1st degree murder conviction. Did GC have the support she needed from the State's Attorney's office???

 

[vislaw]

The first part, before the break, was pretty annoying with the technical problems. It seemed really unrehearsed.

That was pretty awkward and really inexcusable. Moreover, my wife was watching while that was occurring and said she gasped when the post-death image of Dan's face flashed on screen momentarily as she was clicking away.