yeh....'trials' can be temperamental & tricky things: with 'juries' being one of the most un-predictable beasts known in the legal jungle.....i wonder how many of these erst-while supporters have even the foggiest notion of the basics re: legal procedures?

this is only the first day of what could turn into a one month or longer trial....i wonder how many of these 'die-hards' will 'go the distance'?!

the best ways to win a case are:
i/have sufficient evidence to counter the prosecution's 'claims' or, at least, cast some serious doubt on them;
ii/make an accurate psychological assessment of yr particular jury and the best way to frame what evidence you have so as to sow such doubt in their collective sub-conscious and
iii/ensure that your defence counsel is sufficiently aggressive to neutralise a hostile judge and keep him/her on such a short leash that the 'summing up' of the defence and prosecution does not assume the mantle of over-whelming judicial authority likely to cow and sway a jury to an adverse verdict: judges being notorious for 'cozening up' to the prosecution!
(the ideal way to prevent this is to foster a 'warm, fuzzy, in-distinct' summing up which, invariably, will leave most juries baffled & confused....the more 'flummoxed' a jury is: the more likely the accused is to get a favourable verdict: whether that be 'not guilty' on one or more charges or a mis-trial!)

naturally: i wish Mr Griffin et al the vert best of 'British luck': but: i hope they are sufficiently 'street-wise' legally to have not exceeded their own expectations!

(jimbo!)