OK, it was a mock trial. But there was a jury of undergrads eager to get the extra credit promised them by their professors.
I was the defense attorney. The charge was arson. My poor client was the victim of circumstance – he hired a tool and die designer weeks before his plant burned down. This tool and die designer just happened to have been hired by two other plants that burned down weeks after he started.
Sure, my client’s firm had lost 1 million dollars over the last 21 months. Sure, my client had just upped his fire insurance by 50%. Sure, a $400,000 loan was coming due in two weeks.
But I managed to win, 9-3 (we didn’t make the jury find a unanimous verdict). The prosecution’s star witness was my client’s alleged co-conspirator, who got a plea agreement that saved her 10 years in prison. I had an expert who basically testified that if you can’t rule out all accidental causes, you can’t call a fire arson. I had the owner (played ably by little brother) of one of the previous plants that burned down look right at the jury and declare his innocence.
Plus I had a devastating closing – about 1 minute into it all my debating oratory skills, absent these many years, came flying back. I purposely didn’t write out the closing, which scared me to death. But I managed to put an answer out there for every single one of the 20 coincidences the prosecution brought up, and do it in a way that the jury didn’t notice there were 20 coincidences to explain. (This was based on jury feedback.)
Frankly, I’d have voted to convict in half a heartbeat. The main method I used to impeach the witness who received a plea was actually illogical. Both the professor and opposing counsel thought it helped the prosecution’s case, and by any logical analysis it did. I almost had to grit my teeth to do it. But my advocacy professor last year kept telling us that the best arguments for a jury are not necessarily the best arguments for other lawyers, and I decided to go for it. The jury comments after the trial confirmed it – the one thing I got the most criticism on from the professor was the factor that decided it for 6 of them.
I’m still kind of high from 3 nights with less than 4 hours sleep each, but this an exciting event for me. It’s also a little disquieting. Even though it was fake, I still got an arsonist off. And I did it without ever once lying or even stretching the truth, but with a strategy deliberately designed to keep the jury from paying attention to the facts of the case. It’s a very different feeling than arguing the law in motions or appeals.
Dagonee P.S., on a humorous note, one witness was named John Anderson, and every time I addressed him as “Mister Anderson” I had to keep the Agent Smith sneer out my voice.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Very cool Dag! Congratulations!
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
You're a regular Matlock. Did you approach the witness and look all dramatic? Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
*hires Dag as her lifetime lawyer*
Congrats Dag! Next time you have a "Mr. Anderson," you need some Agent Smith sunglasses. Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Just think Dag...you can use these powers for good or for awesome. Choose wisely.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thanks, Noemon and PC (edit: and Narnia and SM).
quote:Did you approach the witness and look all dramatic?
Nope - we had to stay behind a podium unless we asked to approach to hand exhibits.
I still try to ask the one question too many in cross examination, but it didn't burn me last night.
I did get the tennis match thing going - jurors swinging their heads from witness to me and back. It's a very good sign usually.
[ April 07, 2005, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I wish I could have watched the trial, actually. That would have been fun.
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
Congratulations! We knew you were capable.
A friend of mine decided to go into criminal defense. He was very idealistic, but his idealism was crushed after a certain case.
Now he just does research for other lawyers. But he is doing well there.
What a horrible dichotomy it must be, to get off someone you know, or even strongly suspect to be guilty.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Congrats, dude!
perhaps this has been asked before, but I'm curious as to which camp you come down in IRL:
Say this was assigned to you as a public defense (my understanding is that everyone kinda has to take a turn at this) because the Arsonist couldn't afford counsel... he's entitled to your best effort, right? even if he's guilty? it's literally his right... or would you try to find a way to recuse yourself?
again, apologies if this is old ground...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm so proud.
But not at all surprised. Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Jim-Me, I was kind of wondering the same thing. How do lawyers handle that kind of thing?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Say this was assigned to you as a public defense (my understanding is that everyone kinda has to take a turn at this) because the Arsonist couldn't afford counsel... he's entitled to your best effort, right? even if he's guilty? it's literally his right... or would you try to find a way to recuse yourself?
I would do my best within the rules to get a non-guilty verdict, no question. It's hard to reject an appointment - ethically you're supposed to take them unless you aren't competent to handle the case (for example, if it has an issue you know nothing about) or it would cause serious hardship. Usually people appointed are already defense lawyers, so they've reconciled themselves to this a long time ago. Prosecutor's are seldom appointed to defend, and non-criminal lawyers who don't volunteer to be appointed usually don't have the needed experience.
Like the rules that exclude evidence (which, by their nature, almost always exclude evidence with high probative value), vigorously enforcing the right to effective assistance of counsel for defendants who actually commited the crime protects those of us who are not guilty. It helps keep prosecutors in line and also reinforces the presumption of innocence.
quote:I wish I could have watched the trial, actually. That would have been fun.
quote:Seriously. One of my biggest college regrets is that I went to a university that has one of the best law schools in the country and I never watched a mock trial.
I reccomend going to some if you have the opportunity. The cases are, by design, close ones. The students usually take them very seriously and do well. And a lot of the tedious stuff about real trials is condensed. If you serve on a jury, you get to give feedback. If you serve as a witness, you can have even more fun.
Dagonee
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Wow! That is so cool, Dag! Congratulations!
(and I cracked up when I thought of the "Mr. Anderson" deal)
Farmgirl
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Congrats, Dagonee!
quote: I purposely didn’t write out the closing, which scared me to death. But I managed to put an answer out there for every single one of the 20 coincidences the prosecution brought up, and do it in a way that the jury didn’t notice there were 20 coincidences to explain.
You had convincing answeres for 20 different coincidences, with-out notes? I am impressed.
But how did you manage to make the jury forget there were 20? That's a lot of evidence...
Oh, and I would have had to fight the "Mis-ter Anderson" sneer also, probably unsucessfully.
[ April 07, 2005, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Congratulations!
But was your client the owner (apparently innocent) or the tool-and-die guy (apparently guilty)? I thought you said the owner was your client. If you feel he was guilty, then do you feel he hired the T&D guy becasue he was a known arsonist?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
T&D guy died in the fire - I forgot to mention that - so my client was the owner.
The turncoat witness admitted she put the owner and the T&D guy together for the express purpose of burning down the plant.
[ April 07, 2005, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Impressive...
Maybe I can hire you to help me convince my kids that there really isn't a "guy in the basement."
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Congratulations Dag.
When you have an expert witness at a mock trial, is he actually an expert or another student playing a role? If a student, how do you make sure that the expert really presents accurate testimony and not what the attorney wants him to say?
And yes, I know in the real world, there are expert witnesses who will say whatever the lawyer who hired them wants them to say.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
All witnesses are played by students or volunteers. In cases like this, there's always a deposition, prior testimony, or, especially for experts, reports. It's considered very bad behavior to make stuff up, but the way it's enforced is via impeachment on cross. If an expert says "the presence of a triggering device with the defendant's fingerprints proves he's guilty," I would ask, "Why wasn't that in the report."
Here's an example. The prosecution witness stated that one of the surviving windows had been left open. This was not mentioned in the materials, and was very important to the case. I believe it was a mistake, not intentional. What I did was hand him the reports and ask him if everything of importance was in them. He pretty much has to say yes, or I can get his testimony stricken. Once he said yes, I handed him the 8 pages and said, "Please turn to the section where you described the window being open."
I stood at the podium for two very uncomfortable (for him) minutes waiting for him to find it. Finally he had to give up.
The beauty of that was, had I been mistaken, I wouldn't have let the jury know I overlooked the open window.
Dagonee
[ April 07, 2005, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Congratulations! Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
In a case like the window, is there a way that information can be introduced into the case?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I'm really happy for your success, Dag, but I can't imagine defending someone not innocent myself and feeling comfortable. (I know you're not, I'm just saying).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In a case like the window, is there a way that information can be introduced into the case?
Yes - the thing we received the most training on was how to get evidence in. There's a procedure to validate the report, hand it to the witness, and read aloud pertinent parts. Sometimes it can be given to the jury, sometimes not, but there's always a way to get the information in the case materials in.
In a way this makes the criminal mock trials unrealistic, but there's really no other way to give the lawyers the information needed to prepare. Plus, using the materials to enforce the rules gives practice with impeachment, which is a good thing.
There's almost no way in one of these cases to just introduce new facts without being subject to impeachment. If it does happen, it would almost have to be something totally outrageous. We are allowed to object in a sidebar. I haven't heard of it happening - these things are graded and that would be cheating of the worst sort.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm really happy for your success, Dag, but I can't imagine defending someone not innocent myself and feeling comfortable. (I know you're not, I'm just saying).
While I could do it in individual cases, I could not do it as the primary focus of my career. That's not a rationalization, but an acknowledgment of my own personality and limitations.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
quote:these things are graded and that would be cheating of the worst sort.
I'm sure I could think of a worse sort.
[ April 07, 2005, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: Portabello ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Hey, that's awesome! I was on Mock Trial in HS and loved it (not that it's the same, but it was fun). Good for you! Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Nice. We have a good mock trial squad at my school, being as we're also a fairly prestigious Law School.
I've been meaning to ask you, if I'd like to become an interpreter for the courts, would I need to go to law school?
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
Congratulations, Dag!! That is huge. You are going to be a fantastic lawyer.
Way to resist going all Agent Smith. If I ever got up at a podium in a courtroom, I would start screaming about how I want the truth.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
You want the truth? You can't handle...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I've been meaning to ask you, if I'd like to become an interpreter for the courts, would I need to go to law school?
I don't see why, but I'll see if I can find a definite answer for you.
quote:If I ever got up at a podium in a courtroom, I would start screaming about how I want the truth.
I did that the first time I went into a mock courtroom, so it's out of my system.
Dagonee
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Dag! We knew you could do it!
quote: P.S., on a humorous note, one witness was named John Anderson, and every time I addressed him as “Mister Anderson” I had to keep the Agent Smith sneer out my voice. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Thanks. It sounds like you're well on your way to being a terrific lawyer, Dags. Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
Congrats Dag!! I'm not surprised tho, you are articulate, erudite, and any other descriptor that denotes a way with words. I'd love to see you in action some time. The only attribute I can't supply a superlative for is your oratory skills but it sounds like they are more than equal to any task you accept. Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Yay! Good job, and I'm glad you feel good about it.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Being an interpreter does not require going to law school, although the exact credentials will vary.
I know of a guy who was in on a minor speeding ticket and got his case tossed when he volunteered to translate in another case. Granted, this was night court and I'm going to assume that most courts would require some form of credentials, however...
Good job Dag! It does, however, affirm my belief in the definition of justice as handed down by our judicial system.
-Trevor
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Congrats! *applauds*
I wondered where you'd been lately. (Not that you hadn't been around at all, just that your posting rate dropped a lot.)
If you'd kept it up a couple days longer, I might've caught up with you again.
[ April 07, 2005, 09:05 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
I'd hate to be the guy arguing against Dagonee...
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Good for you, Dags!
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Out of sheer curiosity, how old are you? From the legal intellect that pops up in a lot of your posts, I always assumed you were a practicing lawyer in your 40's.
Posted by Dragon (Member # 3670) on :
That is SO cool!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Out of sheer curiosity, how old are you? From the legal intellect that pops up in a lot of your posts, I always assumed you were a practicing lawyer in your 40's.
I'm 34 - I took 11 years between college and law school. I try very hard to make sure everyone knows I'm not a lawyer yet, but I get comfortable with most people knowing it and forget.
On the other hand, any advice I give amounts to "go see a lawyer."
On the interpreter question, here's a link with info on certification programs.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I wondered where you'd been lately. (Not that you hadn't been around at all, just that your posting rate dropped a lot.)
If you'd kept it up a couple days longer, I might've caught up with you again.
Now, now, it's not a contest.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Congrats! I did not see this thread earlier.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Good.
Because I'm not working next week. And I'll be very busy avoiding Pesach cleaning.
Time to catch up on all the threads I haven't read. Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Congratulations Dags! May this be the beginning of a perfect record.
quote:But my advocacy professor last year kept telling us that the best arguments for a jury are not necessarily the best arguments for other lawyers, and I decided to go for it. The jury comments after the trial confirmed it
Yeah, watching the (mock) jury deliberation tapes always cracks me up. I always cringe when someone in the jury say, "well, I don't know much about X, but I saw one time on TV that...." And amazingly, most of the other jurors actually pay attention to this TV wisdom. Jury justice, gotta love it. Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Congrats, Dag, and like others have said, it comes as no surprise to us.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Dag, I'm reading The Crystal City for the first time and ran across this passage. It totally reminded me of you and your trial win.
quote: "Everything I turn my hand to fails..."
"I don't know," said Verily. "You tell a good story."
"Well, that's not something a man can make a living at."
"I do," said Verily.
"Telling stories? Forgive me for saying it, but you don't look like the humorous type."
"I didn't say my stories were funny, but it wouldn't hurt a bit in my profession if I had a little more humor from time to time."
"You're saying that lawyers are storytellers?"
"That's our main job. We take a set of facts, and we tell a story that includes them all and doesn't leave out or contradict a one of them. The other fellow's lawyer then takes the same facts and tells a different story. And the jury believes one story or they believe the other."
Lincoln laughed.
pg 249 in paperback
And yes, that's Abe Lincoln. Congrats again.
[ April 08, 2005, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: Narnia ]
Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
<-- Is very afraid.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
The mock trial sounds like it was fun. Congratulations on winning! Your story about the trial was really interesting. I find it intriguing that you said some things that your professor thought were flawed but that convinced the jury. Do you think this is a weakness in our jury system? What can jurors do to be more informed?
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
congrats! Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:"That's our main job. We take a set of facts, and we tell a story that includes them all and doesn't leave out or contradict a one of them. The other fellow's lawyer then takes the same facts and tells a different story. And the jury believes one story or they believe the other."
This is exactly what I set out to do. My advocacy professor last year was big on the story. I tried to take as many of the prosecution's facts as I could and create two plausible tales that accounted for them without including my client's involvement with the arson. One was that it wasn't arson at all, and one was that if it was arson, my client wasn't involved. The hard part was doing this without having one weaken the other.
The side benefit was that it kept the jury from considering everything together - the evidence of my client's motives and his involvement can lend credence to the fact that it was arson, but I think I kept the jury from considering them together.
Basically, it was "Here is a doubt. Here's the reason for the doubt." I let them turn that into reasonable doubt themselves. Here's what was on my last powerpoint slide:
Was the fire started by accident? The state’s own evidence says it could have been.
Did two intelligent people plan arson in front of a witness (who, incidentally, is very, very angry with Mr. Jackson)?
Is Sonia Peterson lying to avoid 10 to 25 years in prison? She says she has in the past.
I was taking advantage of two things: One, the jury was undergraduates doing a class assignment. I predicted they would give more weight to the reasonable doubt standard than a normal jury. Second, they had limited deliberation time, so there was less chance they would consider both aspects of the case together. The first is something I would do in a real trial - consider the jury and how they would react. The second isn't, but I only had 12 minutes for closing, so I had to cut something.
quote:Do you think this is a weakness in our jury system?
I don't, actually. There's a reason we don't use lawyers or judges for fact finding. They're a very jaded lot. The illogical argument was a direct appeal to emotion - do we want to send a man to prison for at least 10 years on the word of a woman who admits lying under oath to avoid the same fate, and who got the deal of a lifetime avoiding all jail?
That's a legitimate basis for a not guilty finding, and the illogical aspect was merely how I communicated that. Basically, I went through her testimony from the previous trial line by line and asked her, "Was this the truth?" or "Was this a lie?", depending on whether I needed that line as evidence for my own argument. So I got her to testify that she was lying when she said she didn't do it. This means I deliberately elicited testimony that my client was guilty.
Here's why it worked: She had already given the testimony that my client was guilty. That ship had sailed. All I needed to do was making them not believe her.
The lawyers saw the consequence of the fact admitted into evidence (defendant is guilty). The jury saw her saying "I lied" about 50 times.
Dagonee
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Which makes some cases decided on emotional reaction and gut hunch more than factual evidence.
Which is why defense attorneys don't want their clients in shackles and cuffs while sitting in the court room.
-Trevor
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You're absolutely right about the shackles and cuffs. It's also why stun belts shouldn't be placed on defendants in the presence of the jury - no one can help but look uncomfortable knowing they could be shocked by the press of a button.
It's the juries job to decide on the credibility of each witness. This almost requires the use of gut hunches - there's a lot more to credibility than the plausibility of the testimony.
Dagonee
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
*snorts* Yeah well, considering the fiasco in Atlanta, I'm not so sure violent offenders will show up in court sans shackles and stun belts anymore.
-Trevor
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Come on. The fiasco in Atlanta could have been easily prevented if that guy was adequately covered during transport.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
There were a lot of places where the system broke down - but considering the charges for which he was being accused, I don't think shackles would have been out of line.
If the court is still worried about public perception, sit him in a chair, shackle him to the chair and then seat the jury.
And while I agree the system needs a serious evaluation, the cheapest functional solution would be to keep offenders securely detained without having to rely on enlightened self-interest to ensure good behavior.
-Trevor
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
As far as I know, the main one was that he was left alone with one middle-aged woman.
I'm not saying that concerns for safety aren't valid, but as far as I know, lapses are pretty rare, are they not? If that is the case, why fix what ain't broken and will just adversely effect the trial for every defendant?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Inside the courthouse? That and nobody was monitoring the security cameras. Training and personnel issues again.
One middle-aged woman who, I'm going to guess, wasn't especially well trained in hand-to-hand combat or prisoner control. That's a personnel and training issue.
Allowing a man under arrest for the savage beating of a woman to remain under the sole attention of a woman who, if I remember the quality of deputies in the court house, would be hard pressed to maintain control over unruly children never mind a full grown, violent man.
And that singular lapse resulted in four deaths that could have been avoided had the prisoner been properly secured in transit.
I'm saying the system is broken and this is just the largest "oops" to slip through the cracks.
-Trevor
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
:::checks calendar::: Goodness, is it time for NITA already?
Congrats on the victory, Dag, I know it's a sign of things to come!!!
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I am very, very impressed. But not at all surprised.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
Hahaha... Oh, Mock Trial... Fun stuff.
In our competitions this year I only made one big mistake. I um... argued... with the judge. So it docked our team about 7 points, but I won the argument, that's what's important, right? (Actually, anyone would tell you, it was the judge who started it.)
Yeah, sounds like you did great, I want to do mock trial again. Just not with a particular judge. (She broke almost every rule I can think of to have the other team win. She walked off before she let us have a rebuttal, she was instructing the other team how to do things, she didn't stay for questioning, she was only watching the other team, she just... was really biased against us. But that may be because we were up against a private school, so they had to win with name, not skill.)
You have another competition as prosecution, Dagonee?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, this was a class, and there's only one jury trial. We did a bench trial a couple weeks ago (a civil matter), and I was on the plaintiff team. But this time I was solo and got to choose the strategy by myself.
Our professor is very even-handed. He was a federal prosecutor for a long time and now is in private practice. He teaches trial advocacy each spring semester, driving down from DC once a week.
I remember a couple of unfair judges in policy debate, and it was very hard to get over.
quote: Goodness, is it time for NITA already?
Good ol' Nita City. A lot of bad stuff goes down there.
Next year I'm going to try to take a winter term trial advocacy class - 2 weeks full time, run by NITA. And it's 2 credits I don't have to take during the normal semester.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)