Before trial, at the motions hearing, I successfully got the risk of 20 years in confinement, reduced by half to 10 years. Sure, it is a win; if given the choice between losing both my arms or just one, I would choose just one, but I would prefer not to lose any limb; after all, I am pretty attached to them. Again, early in the process, I told the prosecutors that they had overcharged my client . . . they didn’t listen, or perhaps their boss was just too prideful to care . . . but the judge did listen.
I asked for an expert consultant in forensic psychology to help explain my client’s chronic PTSD and how it affected him during the charged events, but the prosecutors fought me every step of the way. The judge sided with the prosecutor’s argument, and my request was denied. I then asked for an expert witness for forensic psychology to help explain what was going on with my client and his diagnoses during the charged events. The prosecutors fought me on that request as well, and the judge sided with their arguments, and my request was denied.
I will admit, as I sat in my living room, reading the judge’s decision denying our expert witness request on the eve of trial, I felt hopeless for a moment. “Why are they fighting to hide the truth about what happened?!” I yelled to myself. In the moment, I reminded myself that I knew something they did not . . . that they missed something right in front of their eyes. And I was going to dangle it in front of them during my opening statements to the jury, when it would be too late for them to fix their mistakes.
The criminal investigators and prosecutors had all the routing and banking account numbers belonging to my client. Perhaps it was hubris or incompetence, but they did not subpoena all of the records.
During opening statements, the first words out of the prosecutor’s mouth were, “Follow the money.” I smiled ear to ear when I heard that. When it was my turn to address the jury for my opening statement, I told them, “The prosecution wants you to follow the money. Yes, please follow the money. You will see that the investigators did not bother to follow the money, and during this trial, when the CID agent takes the stand, you will see that not only did they NOT follow the money, but the fact they didn’t will be news to them. I bet hearing that they did not follow the money surprises them, but it shouldn’t because despite having all the account numbers and resources at their disposal, and despite the fact they are still currently investigating this case, even while we are here in trial, they still do not know the whole truth.”
The trial carried on; the prosecutors brought their witnesses, I cross-examined their witnesses, and we had the momentum. When I called a witness to get important banking documents in, what did the prosecutors do . . . they objected, and the judge did not allow the document to be admitted into evidence. Remember how the prosecutors were so confident that their case was so “clear cut” that they “had the evidence to prove it,” if that were true, then why would this defense document present such a threat to their case? Shouldn’t they be interested in the truth? Remember, humans are fallible, and at the end of the day, humans like winning. Sometimes when cornered, it becomes less about the truth and more about winning. People forget they are playing with others' freedom and lives; it should not be about winning; it should be about justice.
At the end of the trial, I was still confident in our case. As I gave my closing statement, I could see the jury taking notes, nodding their heads, and that is when I knew . . . the jury had seen the truth; they just needed the time to deliberate together on it. After three hours, the jury had reached a verdict. The two most beautiful words, when said together, in the English language . . . “Not Guilty.”
More case results to come.
コメント