“Optics” in the impeachment trial

I have watched live, seen the video and YouTube replays of the Duterte impeachment proceedings, to notice interesting optics that may influence the senator-judges, audience, and the public on their perceptions/decisions the culpability/guilt of the vice president and her impeachment. Maybe, the prosecution and the defense teams have prepared or have become aware of the optics of this trial and have made some changes.

At the outset/beginning of the trial, the choices of the lawyers to handle the specific matters/topics were planned, but the personal appearances, demeanor, personality and photogenic qualities of the specific lawyers may be wanting. Over and above their legal competence, their voice tone, speaking cadence, mannerisms and attire are also important. Then the scenery/ambiance, positioning of the live audiences and video cameras should be considered.

Due to the amount of public information in the main and social media about the impeachment charges and documents, even before the start of the trial, the defense team should have done more to make the optics to their advantage or at least neutralize them. Given an equally competent team of lawyers from both sides, a roster of pleasant charismatic lawyers would be an advantage. The combative/arrogant behavior and insulting language of some defense lawyers should have been avoided, since it was no match for the slower cadenced presentation of the elder prosecution lawyers.

The dress code of the prosecution lawyers was also more appropriate than the defense team lawyers, with alternating business suits and crisp barongs for the men and Filipiniana dresses or suits for the female lawyers. Ordinary wrinkled cotton barongs of the defense team lack the sense of gravity of the trial when the senator-judges are in crimson robes.

Except for the young female lawyer of the prosecution who is attractive in a Filipina way, and was bashed on social media, all the female lawyers on both sides were decent-looking. The female lawyers in the prosecution team had better make-up and hairstyles, and wore more appropriate dresses for the occasion. In the later part of the trial, the female lawyers of the defense team did, in fact, improve their hairstyles, make-up, and attire.

The courtroom environment/ambiance is dictated by the Senate court configuration, which was fair to both the prosecution and the defense teams. But the location of the audience and spectators makes a difference. In some trial days, controversial pro-Duterte former government officials were sitting behind the witness stand, whose appearance/demeanor did not elicit sympathy. In other times, a group of Catholic nuns with somber-looking women were behind the witness stand, which elicited positive feedback from live and media audiences

The prosecution witnesses presented so far were mostly ordinary employees working in government and private institutions who were testifying on the authenticity/validity of the subpoenaed documents/records. The aggressive cross-examination of these witnesses is counterproductive for the defense as the public sympathizes with the witnesses. Questioning the competence and motivation of these witnesses has limited value. It also does not help the defense team when they prevent the public presentation or even showing in the video screen of documents that are subpoenaed, which were already seen by the public. It is viewed as an obstructionist ploy preventing many documents from public viewing.

Unlike in a movie where a director controls the story and creative vision of the film, an impeachment trial cannot be directed by either the prosecution or defense. A cinematographer, on the other hand, can manage the camera, lighting, visual execution and the characterization of some roles. He can improve the continuing overall optics of the scenes, environment, and continuing scenarios. So far, the prosecution is doing better in the cinematography of the ongoing impeachment trial of Vice President Duterte.