Listening to the closing arguments of the Zimmerman Trial I have to ask myself:
Is there a course entitled “how to ramble on for several hours at a time while saying as little as possible and making as little sense as possible 101” in lawyer schoool?
Granted, I speak before groups of people for a living (I’m a technical trainer) and the object of my speaking is to provide them with information in as clear, concise, thorough and efficient manner as possible.
Both the prosecution and the defense closing arguments have been rambling, confused, and lacking in clarity.
I’m pretty sure it was completely intentional for the state, as they have no actual…you know…evidence. Their entire strategy was to emotionalize, confuse the issues and imply that non evidence and remote possibilities are actually evidence and probabilities. I was expecting their closing to be confusing and make little sense.
On the other hand, the case for the Defense is pretty clear cut and straightforward. The Defense’s case SCREAMS OUT for clarity, conciseness and a logical progression through the evidence.
O’mara had impressed me with the defense up to this point, but his closing, so far, has been painfully confusing and disjointed. Is it just that laywers are too smart for their own good and have trouble organizing their thoughts as a result? I just don’t get it.
This should be a slam dunk for the defense, but O’mara is turning the closing argument into a confusing mess of disjointed, rambling, seemingly unconnected thoughts.
I’ve never been overly impressed with the practitioners of our legal system based on my meager experience with it. This trial hasn’t done anything to disabuse me of the general low regard in which I hold such practitioners.