That's a great post. Post verdict declarations of "I knew it" will be correct for only one position. Nobody knows what the jury will do. Even the jury doesn't know what the jury will do, since they haven't discussed the case with each other or anyone. They aren't even supposed to have decided individually yet.
In the BC case many "knew" the jury would come back NG. I thought he was guilty, and in my mind I thought they would probably come back that way too. But, they came back the other way. Juries surprise trail watchers, and even themselves sometimes. Transposing one's own view of the case onto the minds of the juries is bound to be right sometimes, but it's never to be counted on.
I am sure the attorneys on both sides believe the coming closing arguments to be highly important. Why would they, if the verdict was already apparent?
I heard a DA say the other day that 98% of cases plea out. That surely includes a lot of minor cases, but also includes probably nearly every no brainer. What's left are close cases, or cases in which one side will simply not accept a compromise and want to go all or nothing. I think for such cases, the truth will almost never be apparent with 100% visibility from day one. Deciding what was proved and what wasn't is a matter of exercising judgment, not digitally checking off boxes.
I know I would fall into the easy disdain of criticizing juries or members of them when they didn't produce a verdict I agreed with on high profile cases; a lot of people do. But, I also know every time I stood in front of them in a real case that they represented the status of the people, the citizens, over the legal machine itself. It was always humbling to me. These twelve people would decide - not your well written brief, your long hours in the office, your degrees on the wall. Twelve people from the community.
It isn't a perfect system. It wouldn't be perfect without citizen involvement either. You are asking twelve people to pay close and constant attention to a sometimes confusing, often boring, and frequently lengthy process that their normal lives or personalities likely do not prepare them for. Some might not take it seriously, though almost all jurors do.
Today the attorneys will look the jurors directly in the eyes and make their case. Largely untethered by the restrictions of questioning or the limits of the opening statement, they can finally say what they think and what they feel about this case. And then the jurors, amongst themselves, can finally do the same. They've got a hard job, and if they put their best efforts to it, within whatever limits they have, they have done their duty regardless of their verdict.
The attorneys from both sides will likely thank the jury for their attention and their sacrifice and their effort to decide this case. That may be the only thing the attorneys agree on in closing. But, from prosecution and defense, it will be sincere. The professionals give way to the laymen. The truth and the exercise of power of the state are not, finally, decided by an elite, but by the ordinary citizens who depend on the integrity of the process for themselves and their community. The defendant will stand and see a verdict delivered. The jury is charged to speak the truth, and I hope they find it.