On the very first day of the murder trial for Alexander Pring-Wilson, only 32 percent of respondents to a Court TV survey said his Harvard affiliation would work to his advantage.

And since the morning of April 12, 2003, when Pring-Wilson stabbed 18-year-old Michael D. Colono outside a pizza parlor on Western Ave., the defense attorneys have played up their client’s intelligence and the respectability of his background.

But legal experts hold that, in this case, the Harvard name could act as a double-edged sword—jurors might see Pring-Wilson as an upstanding citizen caught off-guard in a dangerous situation, or they could see a haughty Ivy Leaguer who believed he could get away with an act of violence against a local Hispanic teen.

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey R. Toobin ’82 says highlighting a defendant’s clean record is standard procedure, but the Harvard connection complicates matters.

“It’s common for the defense to say the defendant is a good guy and the witnesses are bums,” says Toobin, who is also a Crimson editor. “The risk to the defense is that jurors will say, either consciously or subconsciously, ‘We’re sick of these arrogant Harvard jerks acting like the rules don’t apply to them.’”

But the conundrum is inevitable, Toobin says.

“You have to tell the jury that this kid has had a clean record and seems to be a good person,” Toobin says. “They have to do it in a way that makes his client seem humble and wise, not arrogant.”

Savannah Guthrie, an attorney and Court TV’s anchor for this case, notes that Pring-Wilson’s lawyers might be trying to draw attention away from their client’s elite status.

“During the trial, the defense has been referring to him as Alex Pring-Wilson, even as Alex Wilson,” Guthrie said.

Guthrie says that while court was in session yesterday, the prosecution pointed out that Pring-Wilson’s close friends usually call him Sander—insinuating that the defense is trying to paint a different picture of the defendant.

Guthrie speculates that the defense was trying to divert attention away from Pring-Wilson’s hyphenated name and preppy nickname.

“The defense thinks it might be upper class, and they want to get away from that,” she says.

WHAT’S IN A NAME?

But others familiar with the case say a jury must overlook any issues of class and race that attorneys emphasize during the trial because they are irrelevant to the incident in question.

Criminal defense attorney and Court TV commentator Peter T. Ellikan notes Pring-Wilson’s background played no role in the April 12, 2003 stabbing.