Will Winkler be another O.J.?
Was the shooting of her husband Matthew Winkler an accident? Was Mary Winkler the victim of spousal abuse? Were her children turned against her by their respected grandfather? How did lawmen overlook an orange tackle box containing ammunition? Why would a seemingly normal woman shoot her husband in the back while he slept?
If you?re the defense for Mary Winkler, the answers to these questions aren?t important so long as jurors latch on to one of the aforementioned rabbit trails since, when it comes down to it, we will never know for sure the answers to any of those questions.
The most we?ll get on the abuse question is suggestions and innuendo. Someone saw a black eye once or she made an off-handed comment. If you?re waiting for clear abuse evidence, you?ll be waiting a long time, that is, unless you?re just dying to see it. Then, you?ll pick it from between the lines and out of the shadows.
Many folks who have been watching and reading about the trial are scratching their heads, wondering what in the world Steve Farese is doing in leading Winkler?s defense. He has suggested all these different scenarios, ranging from an accident to spousal abuse syndrome while at the same time stretching his cross examinations to almost painful length, fighting with witnesses over trivial things like a debate with Matthew Winkler?s father about whether his son was 5-foot-11 or 6-foot-1.
While this may seem odd, Farese is employing a strategy I?ve seen many times in my 17 years of covering trials. We call this, and there is no pun intended since this is a very serious matter, the shotgun defense, whereby the defense throws several potential reasons for a crime out there, with no real support, hoping to confuse jurors.
Before you laugh and say this will not work, let me remind you of the guiltiest man alive, O.J. Simpson, who is playing the back nine somewhere right now thanks to the fact his defense team employed the shotgun defense. There was truly a mountain of evidence against Simpson yet he was acquitted following a lengthy trial.
Why? Because his team new that race was a big issue. The defense knew the jury was looking for a reason to let O.J. walk but they knew most decent people won?t let an obvious murderer go free. Therefore they gave jurors things to hang their hats on, things that didn?t matter a bit. They gave them a racist cop, a scientist who didn?t do his paperwork exactly right, and a glove which did not fit. None of these meant a hill of beans when it came to the murders (and yes, I can hold my hand where a glove twice the size of my hand won?t slip on over an under-glove like he wore) yet it was enough for a jury, which wanted to let him go in the first place, to find him not guilty.
In the case of O.J., his acquittal came due to race as African Americans had been discriminated against when it came to the law and the jury was mostly African American. In the case of Winkler, it?s spousal abuse, and the jury is mostly women.
And yes, just like Farese, the defense for Simpson wasted time and aggressively cross-examined witnesses, in an attempt to pull the focus of jurors away from the two bleeding bodies in front of O.J.?s ex-wife?s home. And yes, just like prosecutors in the O.J. case, the state is outgunned as Winkler has her own dream team of attorneys, free of charge, who are outperforming the state in this case too.
Will the outcome be the same as O.J. even though in this case, we know who the killer is? Well, I believe the jury, just like the O.J. case, had its mind made up even before they were sworn. Given what we have heard and what we will hear, I doubt there?s anything which will change their minds.
Duane Sherrill is a reporter for the Standard. He can be reached at 473-2191 or by e-mail at [email protected].