Does the "lawyering up" comment from Brigg open the door for some serious appellate consideration if he's convicted? The 5th amendment right not being used against a defendant in front of a jury is a huge deal. Now, the jurors know that the head of security asked AH why he got a lawyer, implicating that AH felt he needed a lawyer quickly after the investigation started and did get one. The question itself from Brigg casts guilt onto AH solely by the nature of the question, and rightfully so, AH shouldn't have to answer that to Brigg or the jurors. Now, AH is left with Brigg never telling the jurors what his response was and left not being able to explain why he "lawyered up" so fast, which he shouldn't have to do. I'm guessing the defense attorneys asked for a mistrial at sidebar which was overruled and the judge told them she would remedy it with an instruction. But, IMO, the instruction really only serves to highlight the issue for the jurors. In fact, I would bet at some point in deliberations one of the jurors says, "Well, if he wasn't guilty why did he get a lawyer so fast afterward..." I hope the attorneys move for a mistrial at the end of the State's case and again after close to preserve the issue. Could be interesting.