You Don't Put A BMW In A Swamp Buggy Race..... and other thoughts on Zimmerman Trial

Earlier in the day someone asked me a direct question about has my opinion of Mark O’Mara changed?
When I read any sentence including the words: “you”, “opinion”, and “Mark O’Mara”, my gut reaction is to cringe. Why? Because so many people think I hate the guy because I’ve been critical of him.

To reconcile their opinion of my perspective, others have even claimed I hold some personal agenda or animosity toward him. None of which can be even considered remotely close to factual. My criticism has historically been an opinion I consider to be intellectually honest.

Three lawyers are hosting a fancy formal, yet intimate, dinner replete with crystal goblets, and starched white linen napkins. They are Mark Nejame, Mark O’Mara and Don West. The guest of honor is the queen of England.

During the toast the Queen farts, loudly. A brief moment of polite company awkwardness is dispatched by Mark NeJame standing up and saying to the table audience: “please excuse my embarrassment”, and with the witnessed chivalry of polite ownership he briefly excuses himself.

The table comfort returns, the awkwardness diffused.

A few well presented courses later, the Queen again has a bout of echoing flatulence. This time Mark O’Mara is first to his feet, and says: “your Highness, I hope you will forgive my embarrassment”; Like Nejame, O’Mara has taken ownership to express his chivalry.

As the table guests adjourn to the library, once again Her Royal Highness cuts a noisy cheese. This time, Don West quickly looks over at her Majesty and says:

“That’s alright Duchess, have that one on me”.

This is how each of these attorneys appear to me.
Mark O’Mara is a good litigator; However, there is one central component which must exist in order for him to be effective. He must be comfortable.
Meaning, as a general constitution Mark O’Mara is not comfy with confrontation and is awkward when he is in the position of having to prove something…. or pull information from someone. UNLESS – he has the total, undeniable, irrefutable and unquestionable evidence to back up his need to be confrontational or challenging.
Mark O’Mara will only “go there” if he has every scintilla of evidence to support his approach. When he has all the information to deconstruct, refute, or dissect a false narrative, he will. But only if there is absolutely no possible opportunity for him to be wrong.
You saw this at work during the jury selection, and you also see this with the witnesses he takes as opposed to the witnesses Don West takes.

Don West will dig into a person, pulling out the nuggets and drilling them down with less concern for his own image, reputation or the feelings attached to both. O’Mara will only attempt such mining “if he already knows beyond the shadow of a doubt” what exists for him to work toward.
West will work on the fly, methodically, and annoyingly to the questioned, to find what’s there; grinding down the issue bit by painstaking bit. Then, when he finds it, he will stop and put a mental marker on its location for later return. O’Mara needs to know where the markers are before he begins.
When you are facing a potentially manipulated witness, who comes with an agenda – perhaps to be dishonest, Don West works best. Once the dishonesty has been comfortably proven, that’s when O’Mara is willing to engage.
That’s what you saw at work with Witness #8, Rachel Jeantel. Don West methodically went through the aspects of her knowledge bit by painstaking bit. He was outlining the perjury and assembling the boundaries which frame the gauntlet. The phone segment was brilliant, outlining how Jeantel has no idea where Trayvon was from the 7-11 to the “mail thing”; She’s cornered. Then West did the same with the 3/19/12 Crump interview gauntlet drawing the boundaries narrower and narrower until there was no room for lateral excuse, or avoidance.

Now that the gauntlet has been drawn, the potential perjure framed, now O’Mara will be the one to call her back for proffer.
That’s the way it’s been working with all the witnesses, and was the same approach in pre-trial discovery and depositions. O’Mara took to questioning the obvious and well known narratives, Don West took the more obtuse, and manufactured.
Mark O’Mara is a legal representative. Don West is a legal advocate.

Together they make a pretty good team. However, this has never been a case deserving of representation. The entire construct is phony bologna – manufactured – false, and fraudulent.
You don’t enter a BMW into a Swamp Buggy Race.

…… Pass the boiled peanuts 😉