To me the defense does nothing but ramble with his questioning. Just total confusion - pretty telling that they don't have anything.
I was afraid to post this, for fear of looking stupid but here goes;
I was a juror when I was much younger and knew little of judicial system or courts. I was determined to do a good job and took great notes and listened intently. I followed every rule the judge told us to at T.
Now that I look back, I see what a buffoon the defense attorney was in that case.
He did much of the same things as this defense attorney here. Asking meaningless questions or rambling with a million questions that end up going no where. I remember that when the defense would do this, I thought I was missing something. Missing the point. I thought to myself that he wouldn't possible just ask questions and go on like this unless there was a big point or revelation that I was missing. I was sure I was the only one missing it! I mean, he wouldn't ask if he wasn't trying to make us
see something very important.
I became so wrapped up in what he was saying and doing and asking,
that I would miss the real issue. I remember being so overwhelmed with these questions he was asking and embarrassed that I didn't get his point or proof.
Because of his rambling, my mind really wandered.
Think of that when he's talking and going on and on. I think that's his motive. glass-lighting the jury. When you have nothing else,
confuse them!
Just so you know;
We were a unanimous jury, finding them guilty at the end. But it took a lot of (wasted) time trying to figure out what the defense attorney was trying to say and we almost gave up because of it.
