Agreed. Excellent summation. I watched both cases intently and the second verdict still makes be boil. They were guilty as sin city.
Classic case of lawyering having an impact. The first case featured the best prosecutors in Las Vegas, David Rogers and David Wall. Both moved up as a result of the case, Rogers to district attorney and Wall to judge. Wall, in particular, was superb in the first trial. I think he should have remained a prosecutor. In contrast, the first trial featured two local defense attorneys who were adequate but made noticeable gaffes.
The second case had all different attorneys. The prosecutors were young and competent, but mostly forgettable. Meanwhile, the defense hired flamboyant attorneys and they were always dictating the flow of events. It was the same judge, Bonaventure, and he seemed to be much more reserved in the second trial, since the first verdict was overturned by the Nevada Supreme Court based on errors made by Bonaventure. He tied two cases together, even though supposedly unrelated, into the same trial and also allowed a questionable comment into the record about Ted Binion's request for Murphy to be taken out of his will.
The most pivotal aspect was the jury's take on testimony by Michael Baden. He was the one who came up with the burking theory, basically choking, after the drug overdose was not enough to kill Binion. I thought it was exactly what happened and the first jury agreed, but the second jury rejected Baden's account and that swung the verdict. The foreman of the first jury remains livid at the outcome of the second trial.
There was tons of circumstantial evidence pointing to the guilt, including phone records, asking the maid not to show up on the day of the death, etc.
I worked at the Horseshoe sportsbook as a supervisor in the early '90s and while I didn't know Ted, I dealt with his brother Jack Binion every day.
|