Maybe this has already been posted but...would the person who voted "It was not so good" please explain what you meant by this. I truly would appreciate your thoughts on this matter.
I'll try.... and to be brief as possible.
A large majority of the people on this forum started the trial having already decided a guilty as charged verdict. So for those people, Martinez closing spoke to their convictions.
The Jury did not go into the case the same way - nor should they.
Just prior to the close - the jury were given specific instructions on how to decide the case (based on facts and evidence and witness testimony).
From that perspective - here are the very weak points I saw in Martinez close:
1. The Forensic facts of this case are beyond strong, beyond compelling AGAINST self defense. ... AND
2. The human factors are different (they usually are). While you have to do some pretty amazing acrobatics to stretch in a "self defence" theory - they will compel some to sympathize with, even identify with the defendant. ...SO
3. Martinez spent too much of the close focused on character assassination and mocking the defendant for what some might see as normal circumstance.
Ex:
How many women fell in love in their teens or were willing to toss their future away on some boy they believed in - only to find it wasn't going to work, or he was bad news or unfaithful? It's young heartbreak and teens can be really stupid about that sort of thing.
The Jury are largely in their 40's - so we can also assume that most of them have children in their late teens and early 20's (I have 3 teens at home).
If there is even one woman who went through something similar or a parent with a teen who went through something similar - the worst thing to do is to slam that type of behavior and mock Jodi for having that happen to her.
It's immaterial to the case.
4. Rather than going over the evidence - just the evidence - piecing it together - showing how it simply could not be self defense, and presenting ALL the circumstances that support pre-meditation, Martinez weaved a story that sounded more like venomous personal hatred for the defendant.
5. All it takes is for one juror to personally related to one of the human factors. (ie: "that" just happened to MY daughter, or, I once lost MY phone cord under the seat, ...etc). That juror will then be more likely to relate to the defendant, be personally affronted by Martinez - and it's a hung jury.
Mr Martinez may come across to some as a hero, passionate about justice - but to others he comes across as rigidly judgmental and lacking self-control.
There is every possibility that the jury will contain people representing both opinions on him.
I think he failed, completely, to present a balance close and to focus the
jury on the facts.
If the Anthony Prosecution team had this case - I suspect it would have ended in March with a guilty verdict.