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.

“It would be different if one of the parties taunted someone as a rich college student,” he says. “Or if Mr. Pring-Wilson had talked down on them for being local townies. But it seemed like he got taunted just for being a stumbling drunk in flip-flops. The fight itself had nothing to do with race or class.”

As a result, Ellikan says he believes assessments of Pring-Wilson’s character or background will play only a minor role in the jury’s ultimate decision.

“In the trial they are really locked on one particular question: did he murder this person or not?” Ellikan says. “And the fact that he may be a good student who belongs to good organizations and can speak five languages really has nothing to do with did he commit this particular crime?”

Pring-Wilson’s background is more likely to lighten his sentence if he is convicted, Ellikan says.

Climenko Professor of Law Charles J. Ogletree says he believes the jury will resist the influences of sensationalized coverage.

“I think they will make that judgement [a verdict] based on hard, cold evidence and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the facts,” he says. “To allow ethnicity or class to enter into these deliberations or considerations at all is not only impermissible but undermines the purpose of a criminal trial.”

Ogletree lauds Cambridge Superior Court Justice Regina Quinlan’s dedication to keeping the courtroom in line by conducting the bulk of jury selection and some testimony in closed session.

“I think we’ve already seen that despite the extensive pretrial publicity and the editorializing around the city, the judge has done an excellent job keeping the jury focused on the facts and evidence.”

Cambridge Mayor Michael A. Sullivan says that the case will not exacerbate “town-gown” tension.

“I don’t think the Harvard connection will play a role,” he says. “I think the jurors are going to watch the testimony and apply a lot of the facts as they find them. Mr. Pring-Wilson will be asked to answer for his actions.”

Sullivan says the defense’s fear of a biased jury in Cambridge—they filed a pretrial motion to move the trial last March—was unfounded.

“Mr. Pring-Wilson may get a fairer trial here than he would elsewhere,” he said. “People elsewhere may have a higher bias against Harvard.”

—Staff writer Hana R. Alberts can be reached at alberts@fas.harvard.edu.