Moira Penza:
You know, I think it was very interesting to contrast the defense with the prosecution in this case.
And so what I think we saw from the defense was a very clear narrative beginning to end. And that’s really important, as a trial lawyer. And so what we saw is, from the start of opening, they had their themes. Their themes were this was consensual and there was government overreach here.
And the other thing that we really saw the defense do is, they acknowledged the weaknesses of their case. So, right at the outset, you heard them in opening statements say, you’re not going to like my client. He did a lot of bad things. He’s a domestic abuser. But what the government is charging him here with is wrong. They’re basically charging him with sex trafficking and racketeering for being a bad guy. And that’s not enough.
And so what I think that the — what the defense did was, they stuck to that very streamlined narrative throughout, whereas I think some of the weaknesses that we saw in the prosecution’s case was that they weren’t fronting the weaknesses as much, which is really important to do in order to maintain credibility with the jury.
And so sometimes you weren’t hearing some of the worst evidence for the prosecution coming out until cross-examination. And you weren’t seeing the prosecution arm jurors with talking points to go back into the jury room and say, this is why, despite the fact that we’re seeing things that look counterintuitive, that doesn’t mean that he didn’t commit sex trafficking because this happens in many sex trafficking cases.
And I think that was one of the big differences. And, similarly, the prosecution bringing such a sprawling case, where they had 34 witnesses, where they had numerous predicates beyond the sex trafficking charges, I think — I think could have backfired for the prosecution here. And I think we may have seen a different result if it had been a more narrowly focused trial.
