The government's case was coherent and made sense and was put in terms that the jury should be able to understand.

Obviously someone had the key to take out the urn and put in the potato chip can. One would think there would be checks and balances, but there was an apparent systems failure.

You try to help them tell a coherent story about what is happening, to make sense of it, so they feel less guilt and shame over protecting others, which is so common,

I believe that the jury in this case did the right thing, and we are obviously very happy with the results. They seemed to have little difficulty coming to the decision they did, seeing it only took them about an hour to come up with a decision.

It's more likely that you can lose a case in jury selection than win the case.

I don't see what contribution, if any, she's going to be able to make in that case.