posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 410 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
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?
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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).
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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! Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
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
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. Posts: 2022 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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. Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
posted
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?
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[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)
