|
Mitchell Epner@mitchellepner.bsky.social |
2/2 He believes that while the defence may have lost the jury at points, "the prosecution is telling a coherent story, so it is less likely to lose the attention of the jury". "But," he adds "It is exhausting to listen closely for this long."
2 replies 1 reposts 30 likes
|
Diane Tucker
@dianetucker.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Yikes, that's a long time. H/T to the jury. For years I was a speaker at the National Gallery of Art. Although I had juicy stories to tell — paintings about lust, illicit love, beheadings — I never spoke longer than 1.5 hours because you can see the visitors becoming fatigued. It's a lot to process
1 replies 0 reposts 5 likes
|
flopperdog
@flopperdog.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Was that the point of the defense doing a three hour close -- so that the jurors would be exhausted by the time the prosecution gets to the most important part of their closing argument?
1 replies 0 reposts 2 likes