It's hard to listen to Nancy Grace, but I did catch a few minutes of her CTV show last night--folks on there seemed to think a mistrial would be the prosecution's best hope. I wonder: is the trial really going that badly? I thought (from what I've read so far) they've done a pretty good job of presenting a case that didn't have a lot of physical evidence--or as good as could be expected anyway.
I am really not sure on the who is better than who side... Only the jurors and the judge knows for sure.
"I wonder: is the trial really going that badly?"
No, I don't think so. The prosection probably could have done a better job but they are getting the evidence out there. Hopefully, they'll have a good closing argument and pull it all together. Geragos, IMO, has an infrastructure for working the media. Perhaps he believes that some of this filters down to jurors. You really need to read transcripts and pick and choose to whom you listen. I find Beth Karas on CTV to be balanced and rational.
IMHO Geragos is running scared. Why else demand a mistrial? Why else his hissy fits? Why else keep distracting the jury when the prosecutor is putting on a display or questioning witnesses? Why else the cheering sections of talking heads telling how great he is -- without explaining what he did so great? And then there are the lies Geragos told.
Geragos acts exactly like a lawyer who knows his client is guilty and there is evidence. He had probably put all his hopes on Juror No. 5, who might be infatuated with Scott or otherswise in his pocket. At the very least No. 5 was prejudiced against pregnant women. I just heard him say how well Scott had treated his wife. I my book a man who runs around and has his wife pawn her jewelry so he can take his mistress out is NOT treating his wife well.