Defending Jacob 2

In the beginning of the book when I was introduced to the character Neal Loguidice, I thought he was intelligent, selfless, and charming. Now I am reading the part of the story where he is at Jacob’s trial, and instead of using the adjectives selfless and charming, I would rather describe him as ignorant and proud. No, he is not the type of proud where he is confident and noble, but the type of proud where he is stuck up and self-centered. To me, when he is in the courtroom, he tries too hard so he ends up looking flashy and overexposed. For example, his beginning statement on the first day of the trial was long and not needed. He rambled and basically was putting on a show for the jurors. It was just obnoxious. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t try to win the jury over when it’s your time to talk, but it would be much simpler if he had just laid it out short, easy, and to the point. This is why I prefer Jonathan’s character, who was Jacob’s lawyer, over Loguidice. Jonathan was simple and his questions to the witnesses were clear and to the point. However, Loguidice would stretch the questions out, making sure to squeeze out every little detail even if it was irrelevant. He was constantly being objected by Jonathan, and even decided to go against the rules by throwing in a question about Andy’s past which the judge had forbidden for him to do. This showed that Neal would do anything in his power to win the case. I must admit, it showed he was incredibly persistent, but to me he lacked the structural support that would enable him to be a good defense lawyer. It was him who suggested Andy to be taken off of the case, and when he was put onto it, it almost seemed like he refused to take in some of Jacob’s evidence into consideration. Of course, the evidence he decided not to think about was all but the ones that made him look guilty.