From your description of your attorney’s demeanor, it sounds like he might benefit from some charm lessons

Besides, skill in medicine is not copyrightable, nor is it downloadable.

In any case, there is a connection between physics and downloading that does make perfect sense. Physicists were one of the first groups of scientists to embrace the internet. The inventor of the Web is a physicist by training. And physicists publish and distribute their research papers on open online forums to a greater degree than any other branch of science. In this sense, Joel is following in a grand tradition. As it happens, I don’t quite approve of his actions, but I can appreciate and even respect his motives.

PRAY FOR FORGIVENESS AND DON’T DO IT AGAIN!

“He was very interesting. It would be fun to sit down and talk with him. There was a minefield of facts he had to negotiate. He approached it in the best way he could. He was very persuasive.”

That’s the thing about Charlie I can’t possibly convey through writing - he simply and unabashedly is who is and my experience has been that people find this endearing. As for my opinions about Oppenheim and Reynolds, I assure you they were not based on the voir dire process alone, where one would expect repetition. I had five days to observe everyone in their native habitat

OK then, Charlie Nesson might benefit from politeness lessons.

Oppenheim’s introductory statement to each jury candidate might have seemed insincere to you, especially after you had heard it more than a dozen times. But remember that each candidate heard the statement only once. I’m sure that most of the jury candidates felt that Oppenheim appreciated their efforts.

By contrast, Nesson, who seemed more real to you, may well have antagonized the candidates.

I don’t know; I wasn’t there. I’m just going on your account. Again, I am grateful that you posted your observations. I know this has been difficult for you. Best of luck.

“Oppenheim seemed to be running a repeating politeness program”

to

“Oppenheim seemed to be running a charm offensive.”

without my knowledge, which may have better conveyed what I meant. I don’t mean to give the impression that Charlie was unlikeable to the jurors, but that he was more real in a palpable way.

Thanks for posting this account. It’s very interesting.

From your description of your attorney’s demeanor, it sounds like he might benefit from some charm lessons. If you want people to trust you, you shouldn’t surprise them or make them feel sheepish, even for a few moments.

Did your side dismiss any potential jurors? If so, what was the basis?

Also I’m wondering how many jury candidates were asked if they had illicitly downloaded music, and how many answered in the affirmative.