People vs. Haun

Oxnard attorney David L. Shain and Ventura attorney William C. Maxwell offer their take on the Diana Haun trial. They will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today’s topic: opening statements. Shain analyzes prosecutor’s remarks, and Maxwell examines defense’s position.

DAVID L. SHAIN, Oxnard attorney

“The prosecution was starting off right from the beginning as portraying Diana Haun as an absolutely obsessed woman . . . Just as the prosecution seeks to have the jury identify with the victim, they would like to have the jury have a sense of the accused as a terrible person. You are really starting to seek to vilify and dehumanize her right from the start . . . The first thing [Prosecutor Michael Frawley] tried to do was seek the jury’s identification with the victim. I think that’s powerful. I thought he was successful at creating an intricate web of circumstances--discussions with co-workers, the purchase of items. What I thought was particularly powerful was information about witnesses to testify about little pieces of the puzzle.”

WILLIAM C. MAXWELL, Ventura defense attorney and former prosecutor

“What Defense Attorney Neil Quinn is basically saying here is you’ve got an evil, manipulative Lothario who is solely responsible, and the other side of the coin is he portrays Haun as this innocent victim. It’s risky. Whenever you make an opening statement in a case like this is risky. If you can’t prove your theory, you’re in trouble . . . Neil’s a very experienced trial attorney, and he comes across as relaxed and casual . . . There’s no direct evidence in this case. It’s almost entirely circumstantial, so it’s a decent way of looking at the facts. Then Neil moves to the D.A.’s own evidence, attacking the eyewitnesses . . . This case is not going to be won on the opening statements--not that some trials aren’t--but in this one it won’t because there’s going to be so much [evidence.”