Why Prosecutors Lose Cases

Casey Anderson

Legal prosecutors can SIMPLIFY about as well as corporate executives – which is not well at all. It’s as obvious to me as the 35-years I’ve spent coaching company presenters. I call it Paolo Rule #1: “nothing is important if no one is listening.”

I’m about to finish Imperfect Justice by Jeff Ashton, a prosecutor in the Casey Anthony murder trial.  The prosecution lost to an amateurish defense team pretty much run by Ms. Anthony – who is no brilliant legal scholar.  They lost because they presented too much complicated information overwhelming any American adult who typically has the attention span of a nervous goldfish.

It reminded me of the OJ Simpson murder trial.  A drowning sea of expert DNA and blood splatter evidence delivered to bored jurors – some of whom literally fell asleep!  Then a slicker like Johnny Cochran comes along and says, “if the glove don’t fit, you must acquit.” Goodbye complicated evidence – goodbye expert testimony.  What would you remember?

I understand the “State” has to put all the evidence into the record of every court case.  But there are better ways to do it than trying to shove it down the throats of jurors who would rather be at home watching “American Idol.”

Imperfect Justice: today.msnbc.msn.com


3 Responses to “Why Prosecutors Lose Cases”

  1. Bill says:

    Juries really are stupid. Your advice is spot on.

  2. Paul says:

    Starting with live tv slow speed chase and finishing with Robert Kardshian’s jaw drop at the aquittal the OJ trial had it all.

  3. Joseph Belle-Isle says:

    Attorneys takes courses in how to pick jurors. If you show an ability to think for yourself and honestly study the evidence at jury selection you are turned away.

Leave a Reply