If there is a God, and really, that seems to be a big if, then we will, at some point today, make it to jury questions. I am very anxious to hear them in this case because there appears to be a growing number of female trial watchers who find Juan’s aggressive courtroom style to be terribly upsetting to their sensibilities. It is a bit ironic that in a case where a woman has brutally murdered a man with malice and forethought, that the defense team would summon in (after over half a dozen experts refused the case) a raging misandrist to take the stand as a domestic violence expert. That said, it appears to have been a brilliant move by the defense as the number of women who claim to desire justice for Travis Alexander but now feel that Juan Martinez is some sort of abusive male, or as one of my commenters referred to him, a misogynist is on the rise.
Suddenly, the perception of Alyce Laviolette’s intellect is somehow improving despite being spoon-fed responses by the defense through day after excruciating day of the most leading questions ever asked in a court of law. Now that she has taken a combative, hostile approach to her chosen duties and refuses to acknowledge even the most fundamental questions with anything other than equivocations and denials, suddenly she is being seen by a more and more vocal minority as some sort of domestic violence guru sent from on high to sustain Arias’ claims of abuse by the man she brutally murdered. Suddenly, Juan Martinez is no longer the prosecutor seeking justice for Travis, but an evil man who raises his voice to a poor caring woman who simply wants to help down-trodden women who are victims of abuse. How, oh how can he be so cruel? I am both mystified and concerned by this new mindset.
Which brings us to juror questions. Are they too falling for the defense’s tactics with this witness? Do people on the jury actually see her as a qualified professional speaking without bias? Is that even possible? I hope today we see the jury ask questions like, “Do you really think it is appropriate to tell a grown man in a professional setting in a public arena you would like to put him in time-out?” “Do you actually put grown men from your therapy groups in time-out?”, “If no, is this another example of when you have ‘misspoke’?”, “Do you think that avoiding the death penalty is a great enough reason to consider that Arias had motives based on secondary gain when you interviewed her?”. ” What are the specifics of some of the previous cases you turned down? What exactly does it take for you to decide not to take a case?”, “What was your relationship like with your father?”. I will be on the edge of my seat waiting to hear the jury questions. I hope a lot of them start with, “Please answer yes or no….”
As always leave your comments and observations here. All opinions are welcome. Do be aware that I have opinions of my own that I will be sharing as well.