Essentially, her strategy in the trial part of the process, has been 2-fold. Both controversial. Here are the details, as presented by Adrienne Gaffney in New York Magazine.
Part 1 was to have the defendant plead guilty. That possibly could get the jurors on his side since the signal is given: We don't want to waste your time. The problem with that is that it was done without a recommendation from government for a life sentence. That means complete uncertainty.
Part 2 was to have a minimalist defense. It only lasted 2 days. The thrust was to demonstrate that the defendant did not play a significant role in the crime's planning, including purchases of materials.
On the 1 hand, it showed respect for the gravity of the crime and the common sense of the jurors to see the defendant as having committed a heinous act. On the other, it could signal: We really don't have much for you, the jurors, to consider.
In the 2nd Rhode Island lead paint public nuisance lead paint trial, the defense did not put on a case. One lawyer I interviewed contended that the jurors were already exhausted by a trial which had run into the fourth month. But that could have sent negative messages. They could have ranged from we have no defense to we are too arrogant to continue with all this. That jury convicted 3 of the 4 of creating a public nuisance. Later the RI Supreme Court tossed the case.
But those convictions showed, at least to some who follow litigation, the wisdom of putting on a strong defense. That's exactly what transpired in "Pao v. Kleiner." The plaintiff lost on all 4 counts.