SewingDeb said:
Maybe the defense is setting up a chance to win on appeal because of imcompetent defense? I'm trying to think of the correct phrase and that's as close as I can come.
At any rate, I felt early on that the defense should just concede defeat rather than waste another day in court.
I watched Court TV when the defense declined to give a closing argument. From what was said later by other lawyers who were interviewed I understood that it could not be construed as an incompetent move. It was actually thought by some lawyers to be excellent strategy.
To give an overview of the thoughts of lawyers interviewed about this I want first of all to answer an earlier post that asked "Why did this case go to trial?" It went to trial because all the Pros. would offer was the death penalty. Now if the defense accepted that it would be incompetent. The Pros. on the other hand didn't feel they could offer life without parole with all the evidence they had and the serious nature of the crime. So the case went to court.
The lead defense lawyer is experienced and considered by many to be skilled in Death Penalty cases. By not giving a closing statement he has kept his credibility with the jury for when he argues for his client's life in the penalty phase of the trial. He questioned every bit of evidence put forth by the Pros. during the trial. Lawyers who were interviewed said he did an excellent job at this but the outcome of the trial was a foregone conclusion. If he had given a closing argument he could not have said anything that would have shredded the evidence put forward by the closing argument of the Pros. Trying to save his client's life in the penalty phase is what this lawyer has as a goal.
One of the Pros. in the case, the female who would have given the Pros. Rebuttal, was interviewed by Court TV and asked if she was surprised by the defense declining to give a closing argument. She said it was a move she had anticipated as a possibility.
Nancy Grace went on about not being able to understand such a tactic. However, other lawyers who were interviewed stated that although it is rarely done, they could understand the advantage of declining to give a closing argument in a case such as this.
The lead defense council was asked if the stategy he had in mind when he declined to give a closing statement was to maintain his credibility with the jury for the penalty phase. In response he smiled and said something to the effect that every move in something as serious as a death penalty case is part of some form of strategy. That was an answer that didn't answer the question.
I hope this summary helps to answer why the case went to trial and why some able and experienced lawyers think the defense declined to give a closing argument.
