It would be nice if the lawyers popped back in here.
I would be happy with a happy ending at this point. I'm not in the mood for something this dystopian.
What I'd like to hear from the FBG lawyers is if the recently discovered miscues and alternative suspects (thug on the street, stepfather, funeral guy) would be enough to sew doubt in the minds of the jurors, especially after the opening argument by Chandra. Box is going to sound very confident and then Chandra & Stone can ask, well what about this? And this? How about this? He would be filled with

's and appear like he is overzealous.
Otoh as has been mentioned Nas seems to be cruising to become a hooked fish by Freddy. He could stay in jail for the crimes he's doing there and he will be totally under the control of Freddy. Sick and twisted, like I said I'm in no mood but as the FBG lawyers have also pointed out the greatest likelihood is that he would have been isolated from all that in real life, or so it would be hoped.
I'm sure I'll get yelled at for answering, but:
1. Personally, if I'm approaching a trial with a "it could have been somebody else" defense, I better actually have something. I think it's bad strategy to say it could have been these three random other people -- I'd prefer to have one, consistent theory of defense (self-defense, this particular Joe did it, no physical/medical evidence, etc.). Heck, there's a decent chance that a judge probably would have precluded the defense from exploring these alternate theories with the lack of evidence that they had (more on this shortly). I'm not saying this is an incredibly bad strategy or implausible, but with the overwhelming evidence pointing towards Naz I'd have focused on a more defined theory of defense rather than the employ the throw a bunch of #### out there and see what sticks type defense.
Regarding the trial, I was pretty disappointed. In terms of reality, this was just slightly better than Law and Order:SVU and doesn't touch My Cousin Vinnie or A Few Good Men for realism. I actually liked the banal, dreary look of the trial (because trials really are somewhat dark and boring) and I liked the prosecutor's demeanor, but there were several huge roll eye moments. In particular:
2. The prosecutor's admittance of Naz's prior bad acts (knocking the kid down the stairway, selling drugs). Generally, a person's prior bad acts - whether there was a conviction or not - are not admissible in the state's case in chief because the prejudicial effect on the defendant (in other words, it's unfair to bring up a person;s past against him b/c the jury may want to convict him for his past crimes) far outweighs the relevance of evidence having a tendency to prove or disprove that the crime alleged has been committed. There are a few possible exceptions, such as if the prior bad acts suggest a modus operandi, the defendant alleges self-defense, or if the defendant brings his own character into issue in his defense (i.e. by calling others to say he has a good reputation in the community or, during his trial, he claims to have never broken the law or something).
3. The female defense attorney's blatant and serious ethical violations. I actually am aware of one prior instance of a female defense attorney engaging in sexual acts with her client, but, as others pointed out, this seemed forced, silly, and borderline offensive to female attorneys. I'm also aware of one prior incident of a defense attorney sneaking drugs into his client in custody, but it's just a ridiculous stretch to suggest an up and coming attorney in a firm would go to such lengths. This is even sillier, if being used as a plot device to have Stone do closing because…
4. In a co-counsel trial, generally each attorney will share duties. Local rules likely will restrict each attorney to doing the work for a particular witness, but it would be normal for one attorney to do opening and another to do closing. Watch the OJ trial, the gay marriage documentary on HBO, or even the "Making a Murderer" documentary for good examples of how the attorneys parse out the work. Here though, despite the female attorney's shortcomings (she missed a slew of objections and the ones she made weren't even actual objections) she apparently was going to do all of the work. So much so that Stone has time to hit the gym, go to the doctors, sleep in, and stare aimlessly at random points (if two lawyers are working a murder trial together, life stops during trial). Heck, I could have sworn there were parts of the trial he wasn't even wearing a tie. I get that he's supposed to be the low-level grinder, but give me a break.
5. The prosecutor, by not disclosing what her detective found regarding the financial advisor to the defense during the trial (or as soon as reasonably possible upon discovery), committed a HUGE ethical violation (specifically, a "Brady violation") by choosing to not disclose the evidence or, at the very least, notifying the judge of the evidence and having the judge review it to see if it had to be disclosed. Talking Duke Lacrosse level #### where she'd likely be disbarred. Seemed way out of character for her. But, whatever, because the likely reality is that a trial of this magnitude would have likely have not happened for a significant time period after arrest (easily no sooner than 6 months and likely a year or two away) and the detective would have closed this case out and moved on to the next several dozen.
6. Speaking of the judge, it's almost a certainty that no judge would have berated a jury like that for being deadlocked and, generally, judges are not supposed to ask the jury what the current "count" is or put any sort of pressure on them to continue. Especially in a murder trial where an appeal is sure to happen upon conviction. Heck, when the judge discovered the female defense attorney's ethical violation he would have probably been in a pretty difficult spot to not declare a mistrial right then because of the obvious appeal issues.
7. There were some minor strategical eye rolls too in terms of the lawyers' decisions on examinations. I strongly doubt the prosecutor doesn't question the random potential culprits (at the very least she should have objected to the majority of their testimonies as irrelevant), just like there's no way Naz's attorney doesn't do a re-direct to ask him to explain why he doesn't know if he killed her. But, I chalk that up to dramatic effect and time constraints.
There were several things about this show that I liked. I did like the impact of incarceration of Naz, even if they did beat us over the head with it and made him do some just incredibly stupid things (although defendants do shave their heads and get really terrible tattoos while in). I also really liked that there were some unknowns: Naz had a spotty past (normal), no discernible defense (normal), police focusing in on their first suspect (normal), etc. It was a good and entertaining show, kind of like Law and Order, but no way this sniffs the upper echelon of tv.