This was her opening statement that Mr. Markus ponders may be the greatest ever:
"Good afternoon Grand Jury. What I want to say...I don't believe I did anything wrong. And thank you USA."
As you ponder the greatest opening statements of all time you have seen, lets break down this opening, because there is more here-much more- than meets the ear and eye.
First: "Good afternoon Grand Jury." Is there any better way a pro se defendant can start? She is polite, and in two words she is demonstrating her ignorance of the trial process. Grand Jury. Of course trials are not conducted before a grand jury, but she is a small, innocent, unsophisticated defendant. A stranger in a strange land. She doesn't know a lot. And she just proved it in four words. Bravo Ms. Zhang. So many pro se defendants strive to prove they are smarter than the prosecutor and judge. She went the other way. She zigged (or maybe Zhanged) when everyone was expecting her to zag. Excellent beginning.
Second: "What I want to say...". This is what she conveyed in four simple words: "I'm doing my best here. Please listen to me. This is what I want you to know." Isn't this what openings are about? Another great sentence.
Third: "I don't believe I did anything wrong." Now her brilliance is showing . She didn't say she didn't do anything. She is subtly admitting the government may have evidence. BUT...she didn't THINK she was doing anything wrong. No mens rea. An argument that every juror understands. Can we convict the defendant if they didn't realize what they were doing was wrong? That they didn't know the law and they didn't want to do anything wrong. And once again, she conveyed an entire defense in less than ten words. Now the jurors know that they do not have to pay too much attention to all the government's proof about what she did. Can they prove WHY she did it? That is the question here. How do you prove what is in someone's mind beyond a reasonable doubt? It's infinitely more harder to prove intent then the act. The government presumably has mounds of evidence of what she did. But how much evidence do they have about intent? Once again Ms. Zhang has out maneuvered experienced prosecutors and agents.
This was a home run opening. The Gettysburg address of openings. Lincoln has been lionized for the eloquence and brevity of his address on the battlefield. The same will be said for Yujing Zhang. Go back and re-read her opening. There is poetry in how it is constructed. Four words. Four words. Seven words explaining her defense. And four words to close. No other trial lawyer we know could have done this as simply and poetically and economically as she did. What do jurors hate about lawyers? Being long winded and boring and wasting their time. No worries about that in Ms. Zhang's opening.
Fourth: "And thank you USA." Sheer genius. How many times have we seen lawyers stumble through a long, not believable, and thoroughly boring pandering to the jury about thanking them for their time and how important jury service is and how no one else can do their jobs without them showing up, blah blah blah blah.
What do
There is so much more to this woman, Yujing Zhang, who at the start of the trial showed up wearing her simple, peasant, jail issued brown clothing. She was embracing the underdog role. The Judge was flummoxed and the trial was in disarray before it began. Check out DOM's blog for all the coverage on that.
This is no simple pro se defendant fighting against all odds- although that is the story line she is conveying. Yujing Zhang is one of the greatest, most effective, and disarmingly smart trial lawyers ever to make an appearance in a court in Florida. Mark our words. This is a trial and a courtroom performance not to be missed.
Agreed that her opening statement was poetry. Your breakdown of her poetry, also poetry.
ReplyDeleteGreatest post this year. Top ten all time. Brilliant and entertaining.
ReplyDeletePlease Rumpole. Keep following this case for us.
ReplyDeleteI live far off - but I am fascinated. Perhaps you could author a best selling book about this trial or write a storyline for a network movie?
i never comment, this post was genius
ReplyDeleteJust a reminder: You can sit in on first appearance / bond hearing in REG twice a day, or go to MAG court downtown. See all those men and women who were arrested?
ReplyDeleteYou know who has not been arrested? Ever? Ghislane Maxwell. Named in a dozen civil suits and in the original Epstein case, as well as in the now-closed federal Epstein case, not only as a procurer of child victims, but as a fellow rapist.
Nope, she's not out on bond. She's not being leveraged to testify against anyone else, not snitching. Not on GPS-roaming. Simply never arrested.
What a country!!
Rumpole, you usually have great insight in your blog posts, but you are such a blatherskite that your readers never understand what you are trying to say.
ReplyDeleteHow bout my Saints last night. Who Dat.
Good analysis, but I still like the four word opening statement made by ASA Rick Hutchison in a long-ago trial in front of Judge Ric Margolius (now Zweig): "Caught in the Act!"
ReplyDeleteThe fact that you're making fun of this woman amply demonstrates your asshole-ness
ReplyDelete333- I am most certainly not making fun of her. I want her to WIN. I am pulling for her acquittal. Did I exaggerate her opening? Sure. Most of what she did was obviously most likely unintentional. But the first witness could not ID her in court, and you know what she did? SHE ASKED NO QUESTIONS. Which is quite frankly better than most lawyers would do. When a witness doesn't hurt you, you leave them be which is what she did. So in my opinion she is completely outlawyering the government so far, and I mean that. I am not ridiculing her and do not intend my post to be that.
ReplyDeleteFlynn going scorched earth on prosecutorial misconduct. It should be a dilemma for liberal hacks like rump... they hate prosecutors, but hate trump worse, and DEFINITELY wont admit their posts here about suspicious Russian contacts were DEAD WRONG. Which "side" they take will be very interesting to me. Rump care to weigh in? Me thinks this will be a very interesting fight as the judge was the same one who handled stevens and the defensive isn't holding back!
ReplyDeleteBest lawyer at having to ask questions of a witness who says nothing about his client is Doug Williams. Has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory countless times as a result.
ReplyDeleteCan you please post what she is charged with? This is fascinating!
ReplyDeleteSo much for her great opening...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.cnn.com/2019/09/11/politics/mar-a-lago-yujing-zhang-trial/index.html
Greatest opening ever?
ReplyDeleteNah. This is, and always will be, the greatest opening ever:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDmGhethEoQ
Uh...it wasn't that great (and persuasive) of an opening.
ReplyDeleteThe great thing about her opening statement is that an hour later the jury wanted to hear it again.
ReplyDelete