Also, the Gash Scarf thing should be more of a meme.
While we're on Garsh, I can't speak to her rulings since I'm not well versed enough in MA caselaw to say how her rulings are located. Hoewver, I remain impressed. She's certainly composed, well-prepared, and is interested in the issues. She does not appear to get her back up when things get fractious, but pushes forward on the legal issue at hand. I believe she want to get to the "right conclusion." I'd also say she's slightly "pro-defense" on close calls, which is a plus in my book (not just because of my own inclinations - pro-state judges often end up being appealed and drawing out or distorting the process.)
***
Jury Instructions:
Sultan's been great on the jury instruction part of this trial (often called "the charging conference") - in terms of style and argumentation. He's very clear and locates his arguments in easily identified principles and cases. He's also well informed as to the trend of the cases vis a vis the model instructions. Meaning he's up on the latest developments and is pointing the court toward how the instructions might change. Prosecution's not bad, but Sultan is a notch above.
For our casual readers, the Jury Instructions are what's read (and often given, in paper form) to the jury at the close of the case. The jury does not go do legal research on their own. The Instructions define things like reasonable doubt, and what "murder" actually is (as opposed to what "manslaughter" actually is.) They are, essentially, the "rules" that the jury applies to the facts they've heard.
To be fair, jury instructions have to "track" the recent cases and developments in the law - i.e., they have to reflect what the law actually is, right now, for everyone. Usually "model" jury instructions are decided upon by a committee of attorneys organized by the state Bar, and those instructions are reviewed, modified, approved, and published by the highest court in that jurisdiction. However, each case is unique and sometimes the court hearing the case will approve modified jury instructions, based on what the attorneys propose, and what cases have been reviewed since the last approved model jury instruction. Since not every contingency can be proposed in a model instruction, sometimes courts will approve completely customized jury instructions on fringe issues.
In closing, attorneys will be able to use the instructions in their arguments. Often the state will blow up the instructions on a screen and go point by point. The defense may do the same, but should repeat the language of the burden and reasonable doubt standard over and over. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, X. X is an example of exact-instruction-language. X is an example of exact-instruction-language because blah-blah-blah. Also, Y. Y is an example of exact-instruction-language. Y is an example of exact-instruction-language because blah-blah-blah." The point is to make sure that when the jury reads or hears or reviews the instructions, they associate X, Y and Z with "reasonable doubt" or an "abiding conviction of guilt" or whatnot. (Caveat is that if your case truly sucks, don't point it out by hewing to the language of the instructions, which will not help.)
Therefore, jury instructions can be absolutely crucial in contextualizing evidence for the jury. Any tweaks you can make in the charging conference can go a long way.
***
Seeing Sultan do so well with this piece makes me reflect that there's very little in this case that I'd hold up as an aspirational model for how to prosecute or defend a case. There were some good bits, and the prosecution had some truly wonderful rebuttals, and as noted, Sultan's showing in this piece is very very good. (Also voir dire wasn't televised - and that can basically decide the case before a single argument is made. We can't form an opinion on it.)
I'd still say this trial was worth following. There were good examples of *many* issues and circumstances that come up in criminal trials; I'd say nearly all those things were done in a workmanlike enough manner. DNA, Fingerprinting, crime scene, police interviews, camera/video evidence, cell phone evidence (and triangulation), firearms and ballistics, etc. That may sound like it's damning with faint praise, but it's not. "Not screwing up a case" is sometimes harder than it sounds - especially with months of testimony.
I think we saw pieces of the questioning that were good (or more rarely, excellent). But I didn't see anything that made me slap my hand on my desk and say "fucking brilliant." (In fairness, sometimes that's just not there, but I was hoping to pick up something new.)
Strategically, the trial is harder for me to assess. There were some head scratching things that might have made sense with more information. Neither side seemed organized beyond basic chronology. The jury seems to have been left unoriented for significant parts of the prosecution and defense theories.
It's also problematic for us (the public) to speculate on strategy and tactics since we have access to information the jury does not have. That's always going to bias our impression. For example, when Bradley testified, we all know AH shot him in the face. The jury probably won't know the guy from Adam - how they weigh his testimony in isolation is tough for us to guess. We simply don't have the same emotional/instinctive reaction as they do.
Perhaps the closes will shed light on the above.
Anyway, my somewhat rambling summary (prior to close) is that this has been interesting, has generated some really good conversations and questions and speculations, and we're not quite done yet. Defense still has a case in chief. And we still have the closing arguments.