The Verdict: The Kent Fuse, Defused

Tonight's episode of The Verdict, now back on the air after a one-day pre-emption for Quebec election coverage, had only one segment devoted to the Conrad Black trial. (One other featured an interview with Nancy Grace, who discussed why California juries are reluctant to convict the rich and famous.)

That segment had Robert Kent, Jr. on, with Canadian criminal lawyer Boris Bytensky. He softened his original remarks about the prosecution team that he had made earlier today, noting that Monday-morning quarterbacking is basically uncalled for, a sentiment that Csr. Bytensky agreed with. They did disagree, though, on the efficaciousness of Jeffrey Cramer's opening statement.

According to Csr. Kent, the prosecution's opening statement was too short, which enabled defense counsels to make points in their own opening statements that Csr. Cramer didn't pre-empt. [Edward Genson did pre-empt the attitude factor from being used by the prosecution in his own opening address.] His opener also glossed over the fact that the non-compete payments were in fact sent from the purchasers to Hollinger Inc., not to Conrad Black or to any of the other defendants personally. He also offered the advice that David Radler should testify in the middle of the prosecution's turn, so as both to lay a proper foundation for his testimony and to later defuse the savaging expected from defense counsels.

Csr. Bytensky's own assessment of Csr. Cramer's opening statement is that its brevity prevented over-repetitiveness from dulling its message. Thoroughness is more important for the closing address; if the case for the defense is not fully accounted for as of that point, the prosecution has no more chance to recover.