So weird watching Marcia Clark, who famously — and unsuccessfully — prosecuted O.J. Simpson in his 1995 trial on charges he murdered his ex-wife, Nicole Brown, and her friend, Ron Goldman, critique the prosecution’s performance, including its closing arguments, in George Zimmerman’s trial on charges that he murdered or manslaughtered 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.
Why don’t TV networks having winning prosecutors commenting on the good or poor presentation of the prosecutors in this trial instead of such a high-profile losing one?
Does Marcia Clark, whose identifying credits always include the title of her latest work of fiction, really have that much audience draw?
I hardly recognized Marcia. As you noted, she and the other “critics” including Geragos have the covers of their books flashed on the CNN screen. I take it this is in lieu of payment.
What a strange and depressing exercise.
It has been 18 years, after all, although if you do a Google Images search, I think you will see that Marcia’s appearance has changed more than other Simpson trial principals. Others, while grayer and packing a few more pounds, are still recognizable.
I don’t know if flashing Marcia’s and Mark’s book covers is in lieu of punditry payment. I do remember, however, the huge appearance/speaking fees Marcia commanded post-O.J. Simpson trial and w/publication of her first work of fiction (snark). And I never understood the way-more than generous bonus L.A.D.A. Gil Garcetti gifted her after she lost the Simpson case and almost simultaneously demoted the lead deputy D.A. who won convictions of both Menendez brothers charged with murdering their parents after their first trial crashed and burned w/hung juries. Go figure.