defense attorney mark geragos had done what he could to poke holes in the prosecution s murder case against paul zumot, arguing the prosecution had no scientific proof or clear evidence zumot was anywhere near jennifer when she was strangled and when the house was set on fire. anyway, he asked, if paul attacked jennifer, wouldn t she have put up some kind of a fight? why were there no defensive marks or scratches on paul zumot s body? did the prosecution even have a case? paul zumot wasn t going to take any chances. in fact, he was determined to tell the jury his side of the story. so gerados assigned a female colleague to question paul. it must have been a strategy, whispered courtroom observers. the way to show the jury that paul could, in fact, interact well with a woman. but those observers were mistaken, said geragos. well, i generally i don t
the solution? paul zumot himself appears to have demanded it. the chance to defend himself to the jury by testifying. some courtroom observers believe the defense had already created a reasonable doubt that testifying was in fact, risky. especially for paul, said his friend. knowing paul the way i know paul and the way he could be interpreted incorrectly, i was very nervous about paul taking the stand. risky or not, paul was determined to tell the jury his side of the story. coming up. i thought, you know, if there was any way this jury thought this man was responsible for this, now they know for sure he s not. but what did the jury think? when burning suspicion continues. you wouldn t accept an incomplete job
colleague to question paul. a strategy, whispered courtroom observers. a way to show the jury paul could impracticnteract well wit woman. but those people were mistaken, said geragos. i don t think direct examination is my strong suit. i was concentrating on cross examination of the witnesses. so paul zumot looked the jurors in the eye and told them, i did not kill jennifer schipsi, did not burn the house. then he told them emotions burning to a fever pitch how despite their roller coaster relationship, he truly loved jennifer. his lawyer presented a love letter, in fact, she d written to him. and he broke down then. flood of tears. i was so relieved and i thought, you know, if there was any way this jury thought this man was responsible for this, now they know for sure that he s not, because it s so obvious to me that he s telling the truth.
character assassination block. the solution? paul zumot himself appears to have demanded it. the chance to defend himself to the jury by testifying. some courtroom observers believe the defense had already created a reasonable doubt that testifying was in fact, risky. especially for paul, said his friend. knowing paul the way i know paul and the way he could be interpreted incorrectly, i was very nervous about paul taking the stand. riskary not paul was determined to tell the jury his side of the story. coming up i thought, you know, if there was any way this jury thought this man was responsible for this, now they know for sure that he s not. but what did the jury think? when burning suspicion continues. i m so frustrated. i just want to find a used car without getting ripped off. you could start your search at the all-new carfax.com
whispered courtroom observers. a way to show the jury that paul could in fact, interact with a woman. those observers were mistaken. i generally i don t think direct examination is my strong suit. i was concentrating on cross-examination of the witnesses. paul zumot looked the jurors in the eyes and said i did not kill jennifer. did not burn the house. then he told them, emotions building, how despite their roller coaster relationship, he truly loved jennifer. his lawyer presented add love letter in fact that she had written to him and he broke down then. flood of tears. i was so relieved and i thought, you know, if there was any way this jury thought this man was responsible for this, now they know for sure that he s not. it s so obvious to me that he s telling the truth. but, listening to all of this