I personally have no idea what strategy is at play here, especially during voir dire. Brint asked me to come on here and explain what was going on yesterday. Voir dire is not only the process of selecting jurors for trial, but also a time to start influencing the jury pool. The prosecution will ask jurors questions like, "If I show the elements of X crime, will you convict?" If the juror says yes, then at closing argument the prosecution will say, "I asked you if you would convict if I showed the elements of X crime. I have. I am holding you to your word." Likewise the defense will use the same strategy. That's why you saw questions yesterday such as "Do you think women lie about being sexually assaulted?" It is basic voir dire strategy.Think of it as running the dive in the first quarter so you can run the play action in the fourth.
Whether this strategy works or not is based on far too many other factors at trail. But if you are not using this strategy, you really are not doing your job. I have no idea where the train comes into play, but it seems odd that it would be used to eliminate prospective jurors or to influence them before trial. Remember, the substantive arguments haven't even begun yet, this is just the process of getting the jurors down to 12. Another thing that seems odd is people live tweeting and taking pictures inside the room. I know it is at the Holiday Inn, but I would think the judge would put an end to this pretty quickly.
A few other notes. It is important to understand that what you read in the paper (or egriz), or what you hear on the street, is nothing like what the jury will hear. The jury (in theory) is supposed to only consider relevant admissible evidence subject to the trial judge's discretion. If this evidence has little probative value and has the danger of: unfair prejudice, waste of time, misleading the jury, etc., the judge will exclude it and the jury may not consider it. Then at the end of trial the jury is given a set of instructions that say something like, "I you find that X, Y, and Z occurred (beyond a reasonable doubt), then you are to hold this way." The jury has a framework that they make their decision from, they can't just base their decision on whatever comes to mind.
Also, it will be interesting to see who testifies. I saw that the defense plans on calling two expert witnesses. There are a host of issues that go along with that, which probably should be saved for a different post. Also, there is a lot of strategy to putting the defendant on the stand to testify. This opens up "Pandora's Box" because the opposing side can then attack his character or reputation for truthfulness through cross or other witnesses. They CAN'T do that if it is not put into play first by the defendant.
One final note. There are special character evidence rules for rape victims. You are NOT allowed to offer reputation or opinion evidence of the victim's sexual disposition (i.e. she is the town hussy). The only thing you can show is 1) that the genetic material left was not the defendant's, and 2) past sexual encounters between the victim and defendant to show circumstantial evidence of consent. That is it. Again, town rumors are not heard nor considered by the jury.
I hope this helps clear up a few things.
