fandomhigh | Anatomy of a Trial [Period 4, Class #2, 5-20]

Current Mood: working

Entry tags:

anatomy of a trial

Anatomy of a Trial [Period 4, Class #2, 5-20]

Alex was in the classroom, this week, sipping tea and waiting for her students to file in.

"Welcome back," she began. "First, I'd like to thank all of you for indulging me, last week. More importantly, we've now picked a jury for our hypothetical case. We'll say that we've handled all of the pre-trial motions -- court filings about what evidence can be used and what can't, based on some legal hair-splitting that I won't bore you with -- and set a date for trial. That means it's time to talk about opening statements.

"In opening statements, each side gets to speak to the jury. An opening statement will explain your theory of the crime, and the strengths of your case. It can touch on the weaknesses of your case, thereby disarming the other side's arguments before they happen, but this is dangerous. Especially if you're the prosecuting side. The defense is under no obligation to put on any evidence, so if you refer to statements the defense will make, you're over the line.

"A good opening statement is powerful. Grab the jury's attention, and show them how important this case is. Don't dip into theatrics, though -- most juries are cynical enough to catch on to those. The crime itself is compelling enough.

"A good opening statement tells a story. People like stories; they allow you to visualize a chain of events in a way that a bare recitation of facts wouldn't. Tell the story of the crime, so that jurors understand how and why events unfolded. Juries hate mysteries. They want to know why your client acted uncharacteristically, that day, and if you don't have a plausible explanation, they'll assume it's because you don't have one.

"A good opening statement is simple. Movies and books often start in media res -- in the middle, with flashbacks to the beginning. It's a great artistic device, and a terrible idea in court. Start at the beginning, and end at the end. Avoid legal-ese, and keep the thesaureses locked away. If the jury's confused, then you're at a disadvantage.

"And a good opening statement should have a theme. You should be able to answer the question, 'What is this case about?' in one or two brief sentences. This case is about greed. This case is about a man who couldn't control his temper. This case is about power, and a woman who abused it.

"Today, we're going to work on writing opening statements. Your assignment, this week, is to work up a draft, and rehearse your opening statement in front of at least one other person." She smiled the smile of all evil teachers as she added, "It'll be good practice for next week, when you'll have to give your opening statement here, in class."

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

"Let's discuss," Alex said, sitting on her desk and surveying the room. "Explain the very basics of your cases. Talk about what points you'll hit, for your opening statement. Ask for help. Listen to other students' cases and suggest angles for them to argue, or helpful points to make. Decide whether you're going to be the prosecution or the defense, for this case -- and if you don't know yet, field opinions from your classmates."

(OOC: start a thread with your case, and then ping in to everyone else's to offer them advice on what angles to play and important facts to consider. Alex will do one here in a minute, so you can see WTF I mean.)

"My case is a murder trial," Alex said, opening the file. "The victim is Janey MacIntyre. The accused, William Thornsmith, is the deceased's ex-boyfriend. The murder took place outside a strip club. Thornsmith threatened MacIntyre repeatedly both during the final weeks of the relationship and more so after she ended it. He was not abusive, however. He owned a rifle, one the same caliber as the murder weapon, but he claims it was stolen last year. We haven't found it yet, and not having the murder weapon is frustrating. Furthermore, the defense will play up MacIntyre's job, intimate that she was unfaithful, and hint that his threats were natural and justified. I've decided to take prosecution, and I'd like to prove this was premeditated, not just a 'crime of passion.' Thoughts?"

Karla raised a hand. "Is there any evidence the rifle was stolen? I mean, did he ever call the police to report a break-in or something? Or file an insurance claim?"

From what she'd seen with Triela, guns were pretty expensive. Would someone really let one just go missing.

"And even if his threats were 'justified,'" Karla made a face to suggest what she thought of that idea, "doesn't him making them feed more into the idea of premeditation than passion? If he'd been making threats to her, doesn't that mean he was thinking about it?"

"No insurance claim," Alex said, "although he did report a break in six months back. He said at the time nothing was stolen, and claims now that he was mistaken, that the rifle was. The documented break-in helps his case, but I'm assuming it's an opportunistic ploy."

She grimaced at the rest. "It certainly implies it," she said. "I'll admit, I'm mostly worried that the defense will put the victim on trial. One angry ex-boyfriend on the jury starts sympathizing in the wrong places, and my case gets shakier. Jealousy's a very human emotion, but most people don't resort to violence over it. And I have to wonder if the fact that she'd ended the relationship strengthens our case, in that regard."

"Threats are only natural and justified if the person's prepared to follow up on them," Squall pointed out. "Otherwise, they're just stupid."

No, that wasn't at all the point of any of it, but Squall felt the need to throw that out there. Because... whatever.

"That's not quite what I meant," Alex said, flashing him a quick smile. "What I meant is this. The defense isn't going to say it outright, but they'll hint very strongly that the deceased was unfaithful, and that the accused flew into a jealous rage as a result. They'll imply very, very subtly that the deceased 'had it coming,' that she was as responsible for the escalation as he was. It's ridiculous. No one deserves to be murdered. But some people can understand that kind of anger, and I'm worried how that plays out."

"Is being unfaithful punishable by death, here?" Squall asked, honestly curious. "That changes things."

"Not technically," Alex said, frowning slightly as she worked out the logic. "But if you can get the jurors to sympathize with the motive, they're less likely to convict. Or they'll go for a lesser charge."

"Then they're idiots," Squall decided.

"They're human," she shrugged. "Juries aren't robots, churning out the correct computational answer."

"My case is arson," Karla said, rifling through her file. "Raoul Fabian is accused of burning down three libraries in the tri-state area, causing thousands of dollars in damages. There is no direct evidence linking Mr. Fabian to any of the fires, save that he sought employment at each library before it burned. The position was given to someone else in all three cases. After the third fire, an officer pulled Mr. Fabian over for speeding about twelve miles away from the library and found some items that could have been used for arson, but he opened the trunk without a warrant and a judge has ruled that the evidence found is inadmissible. So, while we have a link between Mr. Fabian and the three libraries and a testimony that puts Mr. Fabian in range of the second library in time for him to light the fire, we don't have any concrete evidence. The motive is clear, but we also have to make sure the defense doesn't play up the sympathy angle--especially since no one was hurt. Umm...thoughts?"

"Sympathy?" Squall asked. "A guy burned down some buildings. How does that get sympathy?"

...Although, really, Squall wasn't very good at giving ANYONE sympathy.

"Because sometimes people are stupid and buy the dumbest reasoning ever," Karla replied, rolling her eyes a bit. "He's unemployed, didn't get these jobs, and set them on fire out in vengeance. The defense could play up sympathy for anyone who's ever been out of work long enough to get frustrated about it. And since no one was hurt, there might be plenty of people who don't really care because the only thing lost was a bunch of books."

Karla would find those people on the jury and kneecap them.

Squall blinked at her.

"...But that's stupid," he countered. Elegant, well-thought-out argument, right there.

Karla was starting to notice Squall's appreciation for the succinct. So she simply responded, "Duh."

"The unfortunate thing about fire," Alex mused, "is that it's uncontrolled. Unfortunate for society but good for your case. No one was hurt. Someone very easily could have been. Find out how many employees have keys, and might have gone to the library that night while the crime was in progress -- say, if someone had left her purse. Find out just how much research he did to be sure the building was empty, and uncover the loopholes he missed. There's also the question of the firefighters: regardless of how empty the building was when the fire started, he endangered the life of every fireman who had to enter that burning building to end it. Any one of them could have been seriously hurt, if not killed."

She drummed her fingers on the table for a few seconds before adding, "You might also consider something that would require a little finesse -- something you can't state outright, but an undercurrent to argue alongside the defense's ploy for sympathy on behalf of the unemployed. The defendant didn't burn down a caviar factory or a Mercedes dealership. He went after libraries. That doesn't conjure up pictures of the rich and uncaring elite. Libraries serve students, the poor, and people who seek to learn, possibly to better themselves. Those are the people he hurt, by this. Talk about the groups that had to be rescheduled, or even cancelled; talk about how long the library had to close its doors. Fight populism with populism."

Squall looked over the case file.

"My case is a doctor who's been accused with prescribing..." Squall looked at the names of the various substances, and decided not to bother pronouncing them right now. "...drugs for people who didn't need them, in exchange for money, so they could get high. He didn't even examine most of them. One of them's in the hospital now because she OD'ed."

Squall grimaced.

"Basically, he was dealing drugs from his office. His defense is crap, but none of his customers are gonna testify against him."

There were a lot more details there, but most of them weren't important.

"Your biggest problem will be the perception that prescriptions are a different creature than street drugs," Alex said. "A doctor using his pad to prescribe vicodin conjures up a different mental image than a dealer standing on the corner, peddling crack. You'll need to bridge that gap. Talk about the lives he's destroyed, the damage he's caused. The woman in the hospital could easily have died. Doctors are supposed to do no harm, to protect their patients -- he used a sacred bond of trust and abused it for monetary game. Show that he's worse than the crack dealer on the street, because at least everyone knows what to expect from him."

"But... he's not worse than a 'crack' dealer," Squall protested. "The drugs he's selling are probably safer than something you could buy on the street. What's wrong with just pointing out that he did something wrong?"

"It's like negotiating," Alex explained. "You want to start from the strongest possible position, not the weakest. If you say it was somewhat bad, and the defense says it wasn't bad at all, the jury assumes the truth is somewhere in the middle. I'm not saying you should lie and pretend it's the worst crime ever, but you don't want to concede all that ground at the start. Make the defense work for it."

"I hate negotiating," Squall grumbled. It was a lot of back-and-forth trying to get to a point that both parties could see from the beginning anyway, except you had to be careful not to be outmaneuvered, and... It sucked.

"The defense is defending the criminal," he added. "They're SUPPOSED to have to work for it."

"Then make them," she said. "If the other side sees that you've dropped your end, they'll only fight harder."

"My case concerns driving while under the influence," Hinata said, resisting the urge to look down at her notes and speaking slowly to minimize her stutter. "Mimi Callahan was the driver at the time of the accident. Her passengers that night were Annabelle Day and Sarah Rothwell. They were heading back to their dorms after a birthday party for Michelle Herstein, a close friend of all of them when Miss Callahan's car went out of control and they crashed in a ditch just off of their campus. Luckily, no one had been hit by the out of control vehicle and with the deployment of the airbags, emergency services were contacted quickly.

"On their way to the hospital, while their injuries were being treated, all three girls were subjected to a b-breathalyzer." Which, Hinata maintained, was an odd word. "All three of them were over the blood alcohol content legal for driving, however Miss Rothwell and Miss Day were significantly more intoxicated than Miss Callahan, who registered as only very marginally over the legal limit. All three of them were injured severely in the accident." Hinata paused and had to look down at her notes to rattle off a few of their injuries. "The car Miss Callahan was driving had been in and out of the shop several times over the last few months for minor repairs. I sh-should like to take defence for this case, and I'd like to prove that the accident was simply that, an accident of human error and mechanical difficulties and any punishment under law should be minor."

"Do you have any proof that the car's mechanical issues may have reasserted themselves?" she asked, scribbling a few words on a notepad as Hinata talked. "That's a great angle to work, if you can suggest that the car accident was completely unconnected to any possible inebriation. Is there any wiggle room on the breathalyzer's results? There has to be a margin of error for those devices."

"There is some indication that it is possible," she said, looking through her case. "I h-have a report on the car's current condition from a week prior to the accident, but the damage done to car makes proving anything a difficult proposition."

She flushed.

"I admit that I am uncertain how much potential for error there is in the bereathalzyer's results, though." Hinata flushed. It was embarrassing to admit that, yes.

"I don't know offhand," Alex admitted. "You could do some general research. There has to be someone out there who is convinced that breathalyzer results are consistently high, by a margin that would clear your client. Even if that person is a complete nutball, that would introduce ambiguity for the jury. There might be something innocuous that could affect the results negatively, the way that poppyseed bagels can cause a weak positive for heroin on drug tests. If you're close to the legal limit, don't concede that ground. The prosecution will ask about alternative methods of transportation -- taxis, or calling another friend. You should prepare a counterargument in advance."

She considered that carefully.

"I will do the research first," Hinata said, watching for any signs of disapproval. "What I find out may alter what counterarguments I could use, right?"

Also, the bit about the bagels was just neat.

"Absolutely," Alex agreed. "There may be new avenues to explore. Or possibilities could be shut down entirely. Keep your eyes open and see what presents itself."

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Anatomy of a Trial [Period 4, Class #2, 5-20]

Discussion - Opening Statements - ANAT02

Opening Statements - Alex's Case - ANAT02

Re: Opening Statements - Alex's Case - ANAT02

Re: Opening Statements - Alex's Case - ANAT02

Re: Opening Statements - Alex's Case - ANAT02

Re: Opening Statements - Alex's Case - ANAT02

Re: Opening Statements - Alex's Case - ANAT02

Re: Opening Statements - Alex's Case - ANAT02

Re: Opening Statements - Alex's Case - ANAT02

Re: Opening Statements - Alex's Case - ANAT02

Opening Statements - Karla's Case - ANAT02

Re: Opening Statements - Karla's Case - ANAT02

Re: Opening Statements - Karla's Case - ANAT02

Re: Opening Statements - Karla's Case - ANAT02

Re: Opening Statements - Karla's Case - ANAT02

Re: Opening Statements - Karla's Case - ANAT02

Re: Discussion - Opening Statements - ANAT02

Re: Discussion - Opening Statements - ANAT02

Re: Discussion - Opening Statements - ANAT02

Re: Discussion - Opening Statements - ANAT02

Re: Discussion - Opening Statements - ANAT02

Re: Discussion - Opening Statements - ANAT02

Opening Statements - Hinata's Case - ANAT02

Re: Opening Statements - Hinata's Case - ANAT02

Re: Opening Statements - Hinata's Case - ANAT02

Re: Opening Statements - Hinata's Case - ANAT02

Re: Opening Statements - Hinata's Case - ANAT02

Re: Opening Statements - Hinata's Case - ANAT02