The defendant was a big, ugly brute who was an enforcer for mobster Mickey Cohen. Looking at the man was enough to sway anyone toward conviction, and the prosecution had a solid case. The jury though acquitted him.
Why? Sitting immediately behind the defendant throughout the trial was a beautiful blond woman with three angelic looking daughters with long blond hair. At every break in the trial, the woman and her children would whisper and touch or even hug the defendant. The jury was present for these scenes of tender affection for the defendant.
Obviously, as bad as the defendant looked and as strong as the case was against him, he had a lovely family who contradicted his fearful appearance and the testimony against him.
When the jury came back with a verdict of acquittal, the woman and children were unaccountably absent, so his lawyer -- later my law professor -- asked about them. The defendant smiled and said that he did not really know them. She was an actress whom Mickey had hired.
The lesson my law professor offered was that everything and anything that happens in a court room can sway a jury. Be on guard for how you and your client act and for everything else so that you can make sure that you get a fair shake or better.
What that WOULD garner are a bunch of derogatory, disgusting articles, vile name calling, and the impugnation and defamation of both Melania and Barron, the likes of which would be obscene!
> The lesson my law professor offered was that everything and anything that happens in a court room can sway a jury. Be on guard for how you and your client act and for everything else so that you can make sure that you get a fair shake or better.
Thanks. BTW, this sounds like an example of exactly the kind of consideration that was going through my mind when reading the trial comments that suddenly popped up on this thread.