During this 30-day break, I went back and went through all of the testimony from the first day, all of which was available on youtube.
I recognize that the judge and her assessors are professionals, but with all of the delays in this trial, I sure hope they remember the finer points of this trial. I do know they have the court record at their disposal but seeing as how poorly the defence has presented their case, I can only think that these delays help them put some time between some of the more damming evidence. Memory does fade.
This is a good question. I agree with another poster that because we have a judge and her assistants then I am more confident they will have taken good notes and can jump right back in the fray.
Now if it was a jury of peers I would have reservatiions that what you bring up could be a concern.
The reason I wanted to reply is I think this is such a good point and in my opinion only from watching past cases like the Casey Anthony case and some others, I think the prosecution attorneys sometimes makes a big mistake by going into way too much detail on certain things.
I truly believe they get the jury so confused on certain points that they end up throwing the baby out with the bath water with that particular point. Meaning at first they probably had made their point and convinced the jury but because they hammered on it with way too much detail about it, then the defense finds opportunities to argue insignificant points about the evidence that doesnt amount to a hill of beans but does have a "win" for the defense because it ends up clouding up the point they were trying to make in the first place.
And then if each point is hammered to death with this approach, the trial ends up taking days and days and days and sometimes months. My point is further justified when you think how little time a jury really deliberates on those really long drawn out trials. Sure they may deliberate X days, but they surely are not going to ask the judge to hand them back for review all those fine points and materials that were discussed ad-nauseum throughout the trial. Sometimes a jury will only take a day or 2 to come to a verdict when the case took months.
So the point I am trying to make and probably am failing miserably. :floorlaugh: is I think attorneys should try to keep things simple and to the point as much as possible as each point they need to make is discussed. If too many days of fighting with the defense about very specific details, then the case as a whole kind of gets lost in the shuffle.
Especially if a defense attorney scores some big wins on minor pieces of evidence. The jury may remember the defense proved that some testing was wrong about something and that will score big but the evidence may have not even been that important. The jury will remember that part and then not trust some other parts where the prosecuture showed what really mattered.
Hope this makes some sense what I was trying to discuss.
Anyway, all JMO of course.
Cant wait for trial to start again here.