I agree that the defense has a horrendous uphill battle, and have put on an amazingly good defense despite the enormous obstacle (i.e., Jodi Arias) to doing so.
However, in doing this job---which they have done quite well, content-wise--they are NOT doing a good job of containing their misery. They were assigned this case, and it's a monstrous one. Yes, they get media attention---and therefore the potential for hugely bolstered careers. (Before this, Jennifer Willmott primarily defended DUI cases; this is HUGE for her, no matter what yardstick you use to measure and compare.) Instead of taking this dog of a case and defending it both well AND professionally, though, both Willmott and Nurmi have chosen only the former. Professionalism? No--Willmott has been a petulant cheerleader. Nurmi has been a nose-picking, shirt-untucked slob.
Both have, indeed, set forth a damn good case, given the near-indefensible situation with which they were confronted. They have not done so in a way that reflects particularly well on them, IMO.
So yes, I think I could do better, actually.
As for Juan Martinez, yes--in fact I DO think that the State needed him, specifically, to prosecute this case. First, his record is impeccable. Very plainly, he gets convictions. Secondly, he is a HUGE champion for victim's rights. He fights tooth and nail to ensure that justice is served. And he succeeds. Most importantly, he keeps the victim and his family in the forefront of his mind, and works tremendously hard to do the best job he can for them and for the State and society as a whole (because Jodi Arias, if acquitted, can go anywhere she wants for her next kill---and yes, there will be more if she ever sees freedom again).
He didn't "crack the case open" as you snidely suggest. The case didn't need cracking---it was evident to every thinking person, from Day One, that Jodi Arias is a whackjob who, for whatever depraved reason flooded her sick mind, felt fully entitled to kill Travis Alexander, believing that she'd either get away completely or--if caught--be able to extricate herself from any legal fallout because, well, she's always been able to manipulate and seduce her way out of any problem. (Watch the films with Flores again; she clearly plays damsel in distress, even when she knows the jig is up; she thinks she can charm her way out of an arrest for slaughtering a man. Not just killing, brutally slaughtering. Because she wanted to. And that certainty of her ability to outsmart, charm, and seduce her way out has been evident in EVERY performance she's given since--whether on TV newsmagazines or on the witness stand.
Only, as convinced as she is of her wiles, they didn't work. The evidence screams guilt----and her dead eyes (even when she's smiling and singing sweet, or earnestly testifying about the "abuse" she endured) don't elude many.
Good God, when the first words out of a murderess's father's mouth include a declaration that he suspected her from the outset, you know you're on to the truth. (That the jury will not see this because of its highly prejudicial nature is unfortunate; we do NOT see "the truth, the whole truth..." in the guilt phase of a death penalty case. However, I suspect that the penalty phase will include a great deal more revelation of the true nature of the defendant's psychopathologies/psychopathy. THAT is when the prosecution can pull out all the stops.)
The case didn't need cracking. But Jodi Arias does need to be removed from society forever. And Juan Martinez is--whether you like him or not--the man best qualified to ensure that job is done, and done well. Look at his prosecutorial record.
lease:
