to a point that borders on obtuse.

if we listened to the same episode, then you also heard jurors on the jury stating that their perception of his "culture" and how muslims allegedly treat women may have influenced their decision. I raise that as just an example. There are literally hundreds of reasons why a jury may go one way or the other.

the fact that you don't like the way an attorney sounds, what kind of arguments she made, or the notion she made a strategic error by not calling a witness, etc...does not necessarily make him or her "terrible".

based on the broadcast, it sounds like she was having some serious issues toward the end of her life. perhaps she had lost some of her luster in the court room, but there is little indication that her representation of adnan was "terrible".

it's pretty ridiculous to make a professional assessment of anyone based on a few minutes of a story about their performance.

from what little *I* could hear, as someone who has actually worked in this arena, I heard an attorney who worked hard and fought for her client but didn't win that one. That's all I can say in good conscience without actually being privy to all the facts or watching the whole trial.