After 40 years of teaching complex subjects to adults, I say 3 hours, even with a break, is very long, no matter what the topic is (if you want the audience to remember anything). At least have bolded bullet points for the 4-5 main points (that's already pushing it for a 3 hour lecture).
The jury was offered the opportunity to take notes and declined notebooks and pens.
Every prison or jail I've been in has multiple examples of shanks made out of pens. They are one of the most common items to be used for murder or suicide. The state hospital for the criminally insane had a little museum of all the things inmates had used to make weapons, and a whole bunch were based off of pens.
IMO.
Exactly. But my complaint is that he needed to narrow down his repetitive points to the ones that will convict. Make them into slogans. Leave out the details. Make them **points.** Pointed. To the point. Financial malfeasance as motivation. Drugs as ??? To let the defense argue that he was too drug-addled to form intent? Maybe downplay that one a bit. I think the important points are that he lied and kept lying/changing his alibi. The video places him there. Guns from the household used. GPR on blue item taken to Mom's house. Lying about time at Mom's house. Lying about steps taken around Moselle. Missing clothing.
All of those last items are to one point: he lied and innocent people don't lie. That should have been the main point, one that everyone on the jury can relate to.
He did not repeat memorable phrases (bullet points). He had entire topic sentences, followed by several paragraphs, as if he was reading from a document instead of trying to narrow it down to repeated words and phrases. That's exactly what he didn't do. If he took a short list and kept hammering it, it would have stayed with them, been shorter, and if he had done it with some variation in tone (bullet points need more loudness; pause for Pete's sake; actually repeat it until you can see everyone heard it), it would have been better. He seemed exhausted. Everyone is likely exhausted, but that's not how you want the jury to feel during closing. Belaboring is exactly what he did - and that's not the same thing as "repeating" memorable phrases. That means going on and on about one's memorable phrase, to the point that the listeners forget there was a memorable point.
At least have a summary slide of all the main points. And an important point could have been made by the cyclical nature of Alex's lies. Alibi 1 - blown out of the water, so then Alibi 2. Also contradicted facts. Alibi 3 - muddled and lied about on the stand. I know he tried to do this at the end, but I would have done it twice and moved one version to the beginning.
Also, I think a lot of us would have included a few sentences about the psychological state of a man who 1) murders his family and then 2) lies to police, which = family annihilator. Don't just use a term the jury might not have heard before, define it and show how it fits. Takes 2 minutes, is emotionally engaging. I guess that's my complaint. I've seen many a closing argument, and seen juries persuaded (sometimes unfortunately) but the more engaging, emotional, less boring attorney. It didn't need to be much of that kind of engagement - just a teensy bit.
Legal question: are there going to be rebuttals as some here have suggested?