1) Did he ask Jake Tapper to put on Tefillin before the deposition?
2) The jury questions were a real eye opener for me. It was the first time I'd seen it, (I don't follow court cases all that often) but the quality of questions surprised me. a) Was that unusual, or were these pretty standard. b) did the questions (both the ones asked and the ones he saw that were not asked on record) change his strategy or lines of questioning at all for future witnesses?
3)
I hadn't considered a settlement in between phases (I did not fully understand how it would happen until closing), but it seems this was CNN's strategy, and I can't fault it: lean in all the way to being not liable, and if it doesn't work, settle before the full verdict.
Does he believe this to be true? Defamation cases rarely get to a jury - did CNN lowball him to see if they could win in phase one?
4) Does he find there is any affect - for better or for worse - in jurors' perception of him because of his yarmulke? What about judges and other lawyers?
5) After a trial like that where opposing sides were at each other's throats, is there any kind of fraternizing after the case? Any kind of respect or appreciation shown for the opponents strategy or "gamesmanship"?
6) Why that jurisdiction for the trial?
Topic Wiki
