Thomas J. McFeeley Communications

I am a fan of the New York Mets (one of my many faults, I know). Have been since age 4.

One of my favorite players, just a few years back, was a pitcher named Steve Trachsel. He worked very deliberately – yes, slowly – on the mound. People called him “the human rain delay” and said watching him pitch was like watching paint dry.

But I liked him because his deliberate nature allowed me to think about his next pitch as he did. Even when I saw him pitch in person several times, I could follow his thought process: Whether is was disrupting a batter’s timing, throwing inside or outside/up in the strike zone or down, when to throw to first, or which pitch to select in a certain count.

He wasn’t the best pitcher in the world, but to me, his approach was clear and I understood his strategies more often than not. But, I do admit, he was a nightmare for other people to watch.

I thought of him today watching the James Ray triple manslaughter trial. Today’s witness, Melinda Martin, is a former James Ray employee who was both at the Spiritual Warrior retreat and has spoken to the news media about the tragedy. Her testimony will not surprise the defense too much.

The defense attorney who will cross examine her is Tom Kelly. He is the man who has complained about the speed of the trial, complaining “I’m a busy man” who seemingly cannot afford a trial longer than anticipated. Every day he has objections and concerns, many relating to the 6^th Amendment (essentially the right to a speedy trial).

But he has objected dozens of times to the state’s questions to Ms. Martin. Form of the question. Leading questions. Lack of foundation. It seems as if he’s objected to about 50 percent of Sheila Polk’s questions (and winning many objections by the way).

Obviously, her testimony stands to be among the most damning for James Ray; she was employed for only a few months; had never been to Spiritual Warrior or one of Mr. Ray’s sweat lodges; spent a lot of time helping others and being shocked at the conditions people were in, only to be told it was “normal” and to assume a sunnier disposition about the whole experience.

So Mr. Kelly’s repeated objections are serving to: keep out damaging testimony, to throw the prosecutors off their game; and to play both sides of the same coin by working slowly while also complaining things are not moving quickly enough.

Aside from possibly frustrating a jury that is surely eager to move along, Kelly’s legal strategy is fairly sound. And, truthfully, many of Ms. Polk’s questions are inadmissible, perhaps her attempt to get the jury to hear things that they won’t forget, even if she needs to rephrase the question.

These are among the legal maneuvers designed to convict, or acquit, a defendant. It’s all part of the game. While Kelly’s stall tactics annoy me, I’m thinking maybe I young lawyer is watching him like I once watched Steve Trachsel.