07-20-2012, 11:33 AM
Opening statements in the Williams trial just ended. Prior to bringing in the jury, Judge Mandros spent several minutes addressing the gallery and, in no uncertain terms, made it clear that any inappropriate conduct by anyone in the courtroom would not be tolerated. He suggested that anyone who feels they may not be able to control their emotions and actions not attend, and acknowledging that some of the evidence and testimony may be difficult to witness, suggested checking with either the prosecutor or defense attorney's who will be best able to forewarn when such evidence or testimony may occur, so that one may be prepared or not attend trial if they feel it may be too difficult to maintain decorum.
The jury was brought in at 9:15. 12 jurors and two alternates, consisting of 10 women and four men. Two of the men appear to be close in age to the victims; the other two appear to be in their fifties. Of the women, six appear to be 50 or older, with the oldest looking to be in her late seventies. The remaining women appear to range in age from late twenties to mid-thirties. There is one black woman and one of the men looks as though he may be Hispanic, but I can't be certain.
The prosecutor began his statement at 9:29. I thought he did an excellent job. A large video screen behind him, and facing directly at the jury showed a satellite view of the Straubs home and zoomed down to bird's-eye view before panning down and around to a street level view of the house. Then the approximately 4' x 5' screen displayed a beautiful photo of Lisa as he described her to the jury. At one point he mentioned that she was attending college and dreamed of becoming a registered nurse, and then after a short pause added, "like her mom." There was a picture of Johnny displayed while he was described to the jury. He was wearing a tuxedo and looked much younger, and certainly more innocent, than in any photos I've seen before.
In my opinion the prosecutor did a wonderful job. He was a little more animated in both his speech and gestures than the prosecutor in the Pettaway trial, and in my opinion, to great effect. At times as he referred to the, "brutal, cold-hearted," type of person that could commit such, "torture and brutality to another human being," it almost seemed as if his voice cracked. It was very subtle, but noticeable, and I think effective. He, at three times during his statement, moved toward the defense table, pointed at Williams, and with his voice rising said, "Sam Williams is responsible!"
He told the jury that evidence will include phone conversations Williams had that substantiate his involvement, as well as testimony from acquaintances of Williams who will describe conversations they had with him that will further convince them of his guilt. The prosecutor concluded his statement at 9:50.
The defense attorney, who I believe is named Jane Roman, took only14 minutes to give her opening statement, of which the first 11 minutes and the final minute were devoted to what I can only describe as trying to kiss the jury's collective ass. Thanking them for their service and inconvenience, etc. The remaining few minutes consisted solely of attempting, in a variety of ways and redundant as hell, to explain the concept of reasonable doubt. Her grammar was at times poor, she fumbled for words a couple of times, and seemed unprepared. It struck me that if I were a juror, I would have felt like I was being talked down to, and treated as though I am not very bright. Not once did she say Williams was innocent of the crime. It seemed as though she was almost saying to the jury, "Williams did it, but he's gonna get off once I convince you that the rules of the trial mean you have to let him go." It was actually quite surprising to me that her remarks were so weak, and I heard a similar comment from the Straubs brother-in-law as he left the courtroom. The jury was given instructions and led to the jury room to prepare for a visit to the Straubs home to view the crime scene.
Williams, although wearing a white shirt and necktie, still looked to me like a thug. Totally out of place in those clothes, the way you would see white-trash trying to "dress up" for a wedding or funeral. And the shirt they got him is so cheap it's practically see-through; I could clearly see his wife-beater underneath, as well his tattoo's. His face was pale and shiny, his nose protruding like it's been broken a few times, and his gut was battling his belt in a fight to keep his shirt neatly tucked in. The gut was winning. Not at all a sympathetic defendant.
Prior to the start of statements, Judge Mandros gave the jury what I thought was an excellent primer on reasonable doubt and circumstantial evidence. Telling the jury at one point that if one were to look out their window at night and there's no snow on the ground, and looked out again in the morning and then saw snow on the ground, one could reasonably conclude that it had snowed, even though they hadn't seen it snow. He also made it clear that reasonable doubt is not, "any possible doubt," but strong enough doubt that one would rely upon it in making important decisions affecting their own lives. I think his instructions, if adhered to by the jurors, certainly favor the prosecution in this case.
John Clark showed up but was informed he was not allowed to attend because he has been subpoenaed as a witness. He came quietly, and he left quietly. Another gentleman, appearing to be in his sixties, with gray hair and mustache, and nicely dressed was overheard saying that he was John Clark Sr. (which I thought was already taken?) and asked if he could attend. I don't know what transpired after that, but he was not in the courtroom. The Straubs could not attend for the same reason as Clark, and the family was represented by Lindsey (Lisa's sister), Mary Beth's sister and her daughter (Lisa's aunt and cousin), Mary Beth's other sisters husband (Lisa's uncle and "family spokesman" Jim Verbosky) and a close family friend. Clarks were represented by, as I was told, Johnny's uncle and grandmother.
Williams supporters included a young man and woman, appearing to be in their 20's, two older women who looked to be in their seventies, and a man in his 50's. It was interesting to me that they didn't sit in the front row, which remained vacant.
Channel 13 news was filming the proceedings, so hopefully there will again be start-to-finish video for those unable to attend. Hope this helps all you Mockers out there to be on top of this as much as possible from second-hand accounts.
The jury was brought in at 9:15. 12 jurors and two alternates, consisting of 10 women and four men. Two of the men appear to be close in age to the victims; the other two appear to be in their fifties. Of the women, six appear to be 50 or older, with the oldest looking to be in her late seventies. The remaining women appear to range in age from late twenties to mid-thirties. There is one black woman and one of the men looks as though he may be Hispanic, but I can't be certain.
The prosecutor began his statement at 9:29. I thought he did an excellent job. A large video screen behind him, and facing directly at the jury showed a satellite view of the Straubs home and zoomed down to bird's-eye view before panning down and around to a street level view of the house. Then the approximately 4' x 5' screen displayed a beautiful photo of Lisa as he described her to the jury. At one point he mentioned that she was attending college and dreamed of becoming a registered nurse, and then after a short pause added, "like her mom." There was a picture of Johnny displayed while he was described to the jury. He was wearing a tuxedo and looked much younger, and certainly more innocent, than in any photos I've seen before.
In my opinion the prosecutor did a wonderful job. He was a little more animated in both his speech and gestures than the prosecutor in the Pettaway trial, and in my opinion, to great effect. At times as he referred to the, "brutal, cold-hearted," type of person that could commit such, "torture and brutality to another human being," it almost seemed as if his voice cracked. It was very subtle, but noticeable, and I think effective. He, at three times during his statement, moved toward the defense table, pointed at Williams, and with his voice rising said, "Sam Williams is responsible!"
He told the jury that evidence will include phone conversations Williams had that substantiate his involvement, as well as testimony from acquaintances of Williams who will describe conversations they had with him that will further convince them of his guilt. The prosecutor concluded his statement at 9:50.
The defense attorney, who I believe is named Jane Roman, took only14 minutes to give her opening statement, of which the first 11 minutes and the final minute were devoted to what I can only describe as trying to kiss the jury's collective ass. Thanking them for their service and inconvenience, etc. The remaining few minutes consisted solely of attempting, in a variety of ways and redundant as hell, to explain the concept of reasonable doubt. Her grammar was at times poor, she fumbled for words a couple of times, and seemed unprepared. It struck me that if I were a juror, I would have felt like I was being talked down to, and treated as though I am not very bright. Not once did she say Williams was innocent of the crime. It seemed as though she was almost saying to the jury, "Williams did it, but he's gonna get off once I convince you that the rules of the trial mean you have to let him go." It was actually quite surprising to me that her remarks were so weak, and I heard a similar comment from the Straubs brother-in-law as he left the courtroom. The jury was given instructions and led to the jury room to prepare for a visit to the Straubs home to view the crime scene.
Williams, although wearing a white shirt and necktie, still looked to me like a thug. Totally out of place in those clothes, the way you would see white-trash trying to "dress up" for a wedding or funeral. And the shirt they got him is so cheap it's practically see-through; I could clearly see his wife-beater underneath, as well his tattoo's. His face was pale and shiny, his nose protruding like it's been broken a few times, and his gut was battling his belt in a fight to keep his shirt neatly tucked in. The gut was winning. Not at all a sympathetic defendant.
Prior to the start of statements, Judge Mandros gave the jury what I thought was an excellent primer on reasonable doubt and circumstantial evidence. Telling the jury at one point that if one were to look out their window at night and there's no snow on the ground, and looked out again in the morning and then saw snow on the ground, one could reasonably conclude that it had snowed, even though they hadn't seen it snow. He also made it clear that reasonable doubt is not, "any possible doubt," but strong enough doubt that one would rely upon it in making important decisions affecting their own lives. I think his instructions, if adhered to by the jurors, certainly favor the prosecution in this case.
John Clark showed up but was informed he was not allowed to attend because he has been subpoenaed as a witness. He came quietly, and he left quietly. Another gentleman, appearing to be in his sixties, with gray hair and mustache, and nicely dressed was overheard saying that he was John Clark Sr. (which I thought was already taken?) and asked if he could attend. I don't know what transpired after that, but he was not in the courtroom. The Straubs could not attend for the same reason as Clark, and the family was represented by Lindsey (Lisa's sister), Mary Beth's sister and her daughter (Lisa's aunt and cousin), Mary Beth's other sisters husband (Lisa's uncle and "family spokesman" Jim Verbosky) and a close family friend. Clarks were represented by, as I was told, Johnny's uncle and grandmother.
Williams supporters included a young man and woman, appearing to be in their 20's, two older women who looked to be in their seventies, and a man in his 50's. It was interesting to me that they didn't sit in the front row, which remained vacant.
Channel 13 news was filming the proceedings, so hopefully there will again be start-to-finish video for those unable to attend. Hope this helps all you Mockers out there to be on top of this as much as possible from second-hand accounts.