TexasCHLforum.com

The things that were the most interesting to me were...

1) Even though they explained disparity of force very well, the jurors still really got hung up on the fact that it was a man fighting unarmed women. They thought he should have been able to take whatever a couple women would dole out without pulling a weapon. This led the defense team to overcome the issue of man vs. women with the emphasis on the second man's involvement turning them into the metaphorical three-headed monster, which I find fascinating for some reason. The amount of psychological science involved in a good defense is amazing and the concept of chivalry is clearly not dead in our society, just perverted.

2) The fact that one of the women was a trained martial artist skilled in a grappling technique was not allowed to be discussed in court.

3) A lawyer on the jury heard all the evidence and the law on disparity of force and he went back to the deliberations incorrectly saying, "I'm a lawyer and I can tell you that he was not authorized to pull a weapon when the women didn't have one." Jury selection is crucial.

4) Why did he opt for a jury trial? If I were in his shoes, I'd probably want a trial by judge, especially in the case of a judge who was praised as being fair-minded and level-headed.