Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus
Very little "try" and zero passion from Ross at the trial. A reporter that covered the trial told me from the beginning the look on his face said he didn't want to be there.
It can't be easy trying to represent a monster but he picked this profession and it's his job to give it 100% for his client. I can tell you his partner would have as least raised a few questions threw cross examination and showed some passion to the jury.
Kim Ross likely took a big hit to his career with this case.
Admittedly I did not examine Mr. Ross' face during the trial, but this off the record opinion from the unnamed reporter stuff is pretty weak.
There were two trial lawyers working on the case throughout and a third came on at the end to help with the argument on sentencing (for the proper interpretation of consecutive 25 year periods).
Not wanting to be there and not doing the best you can with the facts / evidence you have are two very different things.
Unless you sat in on the privileged meetings, you have no idea what the client's instructions were or what admissions may have been made to Ross. And neither does the reporter. So at best any opinion of Ross' performance is necessarily an uninformed one.