What must the jury be thinking right now?
JA's suspect Defenst Team serving up lie after lie, 'experts' with doctored diagnoses, and a judge hoop-jumping over the Arizona Constitution in order to obey an especially cruel murderer in unprecedented fashion at the jury's expense.
Given the reality on the ground, what little we can see of it, it would seem the table was set for the State, especially after the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court weighed in against the Defense and their judge.
Unlike the JA's hired guns, if there was one thing the jury could count on, it was that the State wasn't going to play games. JM was going to shoot straight, even and especially through the distractions -- including those of a pornographic nature. Over against the monotony of the Defense rehash it was something to look forward to, a thing to be anticipated.
Or was it?
The State assured the jury there was no *advertiser censored* on that hard drive.
When faced with Defense evidence disproving the State's obviously false contention, the State conceded that there were URL's (Internet addresses) which resolve to *advertiser censored* sites, but they certainly weren't admitting anything else -- yet.
Until they were faced with additional evidence, that is. Then the State further conceded that there were four images, but that only two were pornographic. Some downloading by device or human user. And at least one user spent 45 minutes on youporn.com. Not much was said about who that user might or might not have been. (We now know there were multiple images and at least one video on the hard drive, despite the State's initial testimony to the contrary.)
Then the State had its witness assure the jury that the video couldn't actually be played.
Well, that settled the video issue. That is until the State called a Defense witness who explained to the jury that he had no problem playing the *advertiser censored* video.
Isn't this the same prosecutor who aggressively cross-examines Defense witnesses, famously making a major issue out of the number and the size of their own and the defendant's lies?
Now, if folks have read this far without blowing a gasket, congratulations.
Thank you for your patience, and read on.
With me, most of you are no doubt concurring that this sentencing phase retrial isn't about *advertiser censored* -- or at least that it shouldn't be.
And you know what?
I'm still fairly confident that the jury can get past that, if they even need to.
But I'm willing to bet that what some of them will now struggle with moving beyond at this point is something else entirely. Something much larger is at stake. And that something is the very credibility of the State's computer forensics evidence and testimony.
And what of other evidence? Other experts and their testimony? How much of the State's case is now suspect in those jurors' minds?
And if that credibility hit contaminates the State's entire refutation of JA's mitigation claims...
At this point, the jury knows that the Defense will mislead and attempt to hoodwink them.
Are the jurors now thinking that they have to similarly guard against the State, its evidence, its expert witnesses, its testimony -- its entire case?
Where does the jury go now for a little integrity?
I'm not in a position to script this trial, but if I were I'd have scripted a better week than I believe this one was, and right at the point of the State resting its case.
OTOH, maybe trial reporting by Twitter has just caused a giant misunderstanding and the week did not actually unfold as Tweet readers were led to believe.
I could accept that.
