I have mixed feelings. I LIKE JUAN MARTINEZ, let's get that said right now. I see that his style is NECESSARY for the likes of JA and, really, any witness that he knows or suspects to be lying or holding back in any way. It WORKS. Maybe it's because I've watched many more trials by now and I understand it a little better.
That said, the way he crosses his arms and is so nasty at times reminds me of the lawyer in the David Westerfield trial (he raped and murdered 7-yr-old Danielle Van Dam in 2002), Steven Feldman. I could not
STAND Feldman! If I look at it from the point of view that he reviled each and every person on the stand in order to get the truth out of them, then his strategy was like JM's strategy, except that SF
KNEW FOR A FACT that his client actually murdered the little girl (DW knew where the body was and was about to tell them as part of a plea bargain, but they found her first), yet he eviscerated her parents for their swinging lifestyle, tried to blame child




on his client's
OWN SON, and showed utter contempt for pretty much every prosecution witness.
I know that a defense lawyer is supposed to test the proof of the State's case in a "vigorous" manner. If his/her lies, deceptions, finger-pointing and sneers can poke a hole in the State's case, then that's proof he/she is doing their job and that the State's case could not hold up and could, therefore, not be PROVEN beyond a reasonable doubt. It's truly disgusting, though, that attorneys are allowed to get away with so many underhanded tactics in order to achieve that goal.
So, like I said, I LIKE JM and think his style is absolutely necessary and effective under the circumstances, but it definitely causes me to feel an uncomfortable reminder to Steven Feldman defending David Westerfield. I consider SF to have been smarmy, sleazy, and deceitful in that one trial I saw him in.