Add new comment

Generally, lawyers tend to ignore what they don't understand.  
If an opponent makes the reference, then the comment is ignored if it seemed to have traction with the jury, or highlighted if it didn't;  "I don't know what any of this has to do with twelve or any other number, but Mojo's argument doesn't make any sense.  Baseball is Booooooooorring."
If a judge makes an obscure reference, just smile and nod or keep your head down.  If he asks about it, apologize and state that you don't understand.
Generally you'll find that jury selection dictates how well your trial will go, and not whether you state the perfect thing during it.  
For example: In this case, the jury was issued a special interrogatory: "Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that football is better than baseball?"
Jemanji, the plaintiff's lawyer, put on a fine case, while Mojo, for the defense, slaps one together in about 30 minutes of scribbling.  Then the verdict rolled in:
Moe the Dog: Undecided
Diderot (foreman): "Nay.  This case was frivolous"
Grumpy: "Nay. I'm worried about the Plaintiff's lawyer.  He appears to be suffering from a manic delusion."
DaddyO: "Nay"
Sabr Matt: "Nay, and may the Plaintiff's lawyer be horsewhipped?"
Seattle Native: "Nay"
Sumo Dave: "Nay.  Baseball is a microcosm of life"
A true verdict
Mojo shakes hands with the jury, shakes Jemanji's hand, closes up his laptop and goes back to his office to gloat.  :)