Yesterday Beth Karas (TruTV reporter, commentator, and former prosecutor) noted that the Castillo jury includes several people with graduate degrees, including (I believe she said) two with Ph.D.s. I may not be a lawyer, but I am a Ph.D. And I know that you have to be able to read between the lines (and write between the lines for that matter) to earn a Ph.D.

I’m now convinced that at least one juror will understand that Mrs. Castillo said more than she intended to say on the stand. At least one juror is reading the subtext in all the testimony.

In addition, more than one juror is certain to understand what the forensic social worker and the forensic psychiatrist said about Alvaro Castillo’s mental state leading up to the killing and at the time of the crimes. (And no one is claiming Castillo did not commit crimes.)

The jury on which I served also had several people with advanced degrees. Such jurors analyze situations slightly differently from the average citizen – a bit less on gut instinct. When you put yourself through the meat-grinder of grad school, you learn that even when you feel strongly about something you also must justify your opinions rationally. I’m not saying that a highly educated jury will always make the best decisions, but I do know that a highly educated jury will think for themselves before they vote.

The whole Castillo jury may not be willing to acquit the defendant, but at least one will understand that it would be a great injustice to send this young man to an ordinary prison to live the rest of his life in a more abusive system than the one in which he grew up.

The lawyers for both sides in this case are excellent rhetoricians (and this is the first trial in which I can remember saying this). I wish I had been paying closer attention to them from the beginning. I don’t know any of their names, and a cursory Google search turns up numerous stories for “Alvaro Castillo’s lawyers” without once mentioning their names.

All the attorneys are excellent at cross-examination (even the prosecutors, and prosecutors usually aren’t as good as defense attorneys at that). Neither side is hammering away too hard on their themes. Instead, both sides are letting the witnesses make the points so they don’t have to. The prosecution presented their case primarily through the defendant’s diaries and video journals. The defense case is an explanation of what those diaries and videos mean. The prosecution, though, in my opinion (and I am not a lawyer) is going to have to sum up their case in legalese (defining “mental impairment” and “knew right from wrong”). The defense has justice on their side.