In the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing trial, prosecutors won praise for what some analysts said was a masterful playing of a strong hand, while defense lawyers drew criticism for their strategy and performance.
"From the opening statement on, the prosecution had it all over the defense in terms of advocacy," Denver defense attorney David Japha, who closely followed Timothy McVeigh's trial, said last Friday."What the prosecution did that was so effective was that they took a lot of information, boiled it down concisely, gave an opening (statement) that was dynamite and stuck to it," he said.
"The defense did not have a coherent theory of the case," Japha said, adding that the defense changed its arguments during the trial.
At first, the defense suggested the real bomber may have died in the blast. During the penalty phase, the defense devoted much of its case to McVeigh's views about the Waco standoff without making clear their significance.
In closing arguments, the defense again shifted ground, seeming to concede McVeigh had carried out the bombing. Chief defense attorney Stephen Jones said the jury should spare McVeigh's life because otherwise he would take his secrets about the bombing to the grave.
Acclaimed defense attorney Alan Dershowitz was more outspoken in his criticism of McVeigh's lawyers, saying they presented "an awful, awful defense."
"They gave the jury very little to work with," the Harvard law professor said in a telephone interview with CNN.
Dershowitz said he expected Jones to be fired, perhaps even before an appeal that Jones has said he will file on McVeigh's behalf. He suggested that McVeigh could claim "ineffective defense of counsel."
Other lawyers rushed to support Jones and his team, saying they had done the best they could with the poor hand they were dealt.
Denver trial attorney Scott Robinson said the defense did a very good job. "Jones and his crew should be commended for the courageous job they did in representing one of the most detested defendants in history," he said.