The Brooklyn trial of Cesar Rodriquez, 29, for the January 2006 death of his 7-year-old daughter, Nixzmary, opened with a shocker.  Defense counsel Jeffrey Schwartz blamed the mother, and Nixzmary herself, for her fate.  As a general rule, you don’t want to blame a 7 year old child for her own murder at the hands of her father.  It’s unbecoming.

The defense continued down the path of the bizarre when Schwartz introduced a photograph of a coffee mug bearing the words, “World’s Greatest Dad.”  Granted, in a case where the physical evidence against the father, including the chair to which little Nixzmary was bound, and the litter box that served as her toilet, are so shocking and revolting that the defense starts to grasp at straws, anything is fair game.

But a coffee mug?  Is that really the best they can offer?  There are instances where a proffer is so markedly underwhelming that it serves only to highlight the absence of any defense.  This coffee mug defense is such an instance. 

During a break in the proceedings, Schwartz told reporters, “Ironically, I think Nixzmary bought it for him.”  Yes, it would be ironic.  But this isn’t an exercise in irony, it’s a murder trial. 

I can visualize the faces of jurors, as the defense crossed the detective on whether or not it was true that this mug, World’s Greatest Dad, was found in the home.  I can hear the words spoken with sarcasm, with that “ahah” element, as if he’s just ripped the detective’s head off by revealing his outrageous deceit with a masterful blow.

And I can visualize the detective, sitting calmly, and responding to this snarling question, “why yes indeed, we did find that mug in poor, malnourished, scarred and now-dead Nixzmary’s house, where she was tied to a chair, denied food, denied love and ultimately beaten to death at the hands of her parents, the people who she looked to for love and comfort, and instead received death.”  Even though the detective didn’t say this, this is what the jury heard.  It’s what I hear.

The prosecution is still putting on its case against Rodriguez, and it is a case that will cause the hearts of the jury to break.  The defense will get its turn.  But after this stroke of brilliance, crossing the detective about the coffee mug, it’s hard to imagine what evidence the defendant might present that will undo the damage.  The prejudice created by this coffee mug defense will taint any sound evidence or argument to come later.

If this seemed like a good idea for an effective cross at the moment, then the defense needs to seriously reconsider its strategy.