Casciaro motion for new trial

Yesterday the lawyer for Mario Casciaro filed a motion to have Casciaro's guilty verdict in his recent trial vacated and a motion for a new trial. The lawyer, Brian Telander, asserts that the State failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Does Telander's motion have much of a chance in front of Judge Sharon Prather? Since she is the one who didn't seem to find anything wrong during the trial, my guess is that she will deny Telander's motions.

But should she deny them? Or should she recuse herself, since one of Telander's complaints is that Judge Prather told him to "wrap it up", when he was presenting his closing arguments. Will Judge Prather acknowledge her influence against the defense and either grant the motion or step aside?

What was the message to the jury? According to the Northwest Herald, Telander wrote in his motion, "The comment ... not only precluded the defense from finishing their closing argument, but conveyed to the jury that what the defense was saying was unimportant and a waste of time."

I was asked privately after the trial what I thought of the verdict. I answered that I hadn't attended the trial, but if the prosecution got away with its usual style, then it's no wonder the jury found Casciaro guilty.

I have observed a number of felony trials. The prosecution is loud, aggressive, assertive, rude, bullying, and "sells" strongly. They twist information and make statements that don't have to be true. So, even though the judge instructs the jury that anything said by the lawyers (prosecution or defense) is not "testimony" and is to be disregarded, the jury has heard it and, in fact, does not disregard it. The jury is strongly influenced by the style and words of the prosecution.

Perhaps jury instructions should be given at the beginning of trials and then repeated during the trial, as needed, to insure that the lawyers don't become salesmen.

Several years ago I observed a 2½-day trial of a man charged with felony animal abuse, after he shot a vicious guard dog that was roaming off its property. He shot it in self-defense, when it attacked him in his own backyard.

As I sat and watched the trial, I heard no evidence that would have constituted proof. I also watched his defense attorneys. They acted like they were on a field playing badminton, while the other side (the prosecution) was definitely playing rugby. The prosecution "sold" the jury; the defense was weak and did not protest. Had the defense employed the same "style" as the prosecution, the outcome very likely would have been different. The jury was out only about two hours and convicted the accused.

The prosecution in that trial was admonished by the judge not to "humanize" the dog early in the trial. They did it again in their closing arguments, without being challenged again by the judge. Did the accused get a "fair" trial? No way.