I cant speak for this jury of course but every time the defense attorney started rapid objections during a trial I was on, I felt they were trying to keep something very important from us.
And in all five trials I have been on never ever were there this many objections including one that was a DP case.
Judges in my area don't put up with constant objections. And in chamber meetings are as scarce as hen's teeth.
The money wasted in this case has been due to all the in chamber meetings granted, constant sidebars granted, and objections in the hundreds or maybe thousands by now constantly disrupting the testimony of witnesses. To say it has been surreal doesn't even begin to cover it. Its the strangest case I have ever seen and the Judge is also the strangest one I have ever seen preside over a DP case.
If I was a juror on this case trying to listen closely to the evidence only to have it interrupted every second, I would be at the stage of smoke coming out my ears, I would be so aggravated. I would want to standup and scream to the DT "FGS! Let the damn Prosecutor ask his questions and quit interrupting all the time!'
But this is a complex issue involving hearsay, the sort-of-kind-of suspension of hearsay for the mitigation phase, the 6th Amendment, etc. In the first trial I noticed that JM follows a very sensible strategy of giving in on minor issues if he thinks he can still convey the information to the jury another way. In other words, he minimizes appeal issues by "keeping his eye on the ball." He knows he can read a transcript just as well as he can play a video, and maybe better, because he can add just the right emphasis.
