In my opening statement to the jury defending a client “Juan”
against first-degree murder charges, I said that my had no intention of helping
co-defendants “Pedro” and “Miguel” shoot anyone. I explained that Juan thought he was picking
up a couple of guys who he could smoke some dope with after his day at
work. I emphasized that my client was a
steady, well-liked laborer with no history of gang involvement or criminal
activity. He was surprised and fearful
when the guys he thought he was going to smoke with came running back to his
car toting guns. He drove away from the scene
because there was gunfire and the
guys with guns in his car told him to keep going.
The jury is going hear a lot of facts in the trial. My job is to show the jury how to put the jigsaw-puzzle
bits of facts flying at them into a picture that correctly shows what my client
did and didn’t do. The jury needs to
know that the picture I give to them is a reasonable one and that what the
prosecutor wants them to see just doesn’t exist.
Laying out the narrative of the event – alerting the jury
what they should expect to see and not see – is critical. These 12 citizens are going to be sold a
slick story by the District Attorney, police, and a cadre of witnesses who
routinely testify at trials. These folks
are skilled – and I have to help the jury to see past the polish and the
professionalism and to examine the lack of the actual evidence against my
client.
I want the jury to watch for the prosecutor to show them
that my client was a gang member –- she cannot.
And, then I want to jury to understand the importance of that missing
piece in the prosecutor’s story of the day.
I want the jury to see if the prosecutor’s theory that my
client knew that he was helping gang members kill a person in a rival gang
makes sense. My client worked regularly at
a legal job where he was popular – there’s no evidence that he supported
himself by criminal acts. There’s no evidence that he was planning anything
special that day. In fact, the shooters called my client’s cell phone asking
for a ride when he was shopping at a local mall. There’s no evidence that my client was or is
a gang member. Instead, there is
evidence that Juan didn’t and doesn’t participate in gang culture.
Juan was a young man who wanted to relax by smoking
marijuana after a hard day at work. All of the jigsaw-puzzle pieces fit that
picture. It is a human and normal
picture. And, the picture the DA wants the jury to see has missing piece after
missing piece.
My opening statement was designed to spotlight the pieces
missing from the DA’s story. I want the
jury to start watching for those missing pieces from the moment the trial
opens. Because, if those pieces are
still missing at the end of the trial, the jury will find my client not guilty.
The real-life trial which sparked this entry was still in progress when I wrote this post. I have changed some of the facts (names, etc.). But, if you would like to discuss your case with a criminal defense attorney, please contact me.
No comments:
Post a Comment