Post Mortem

The minitrial is over.

The state's case was that the defendant entered a U-Totem, robbed the store, took the clerk's watch, hit him in the head, and shut him in the cooler, with a second witness who came in after.

The defense's case was that the defendant was at a bar a mile and change away from the store, playing a shuffleboard tournament at the time of the robbery.

After all was said and done, the verdict was returned as a hung jury.

I thought we had a pretty good case, but we had worthy opponents who know how to dig and cross and examine. In the end, I'm happy with a hung jury, because that means we convinced at least some members of the jury of guilt (actually, of the 8 jurymembers, 4 wanted to convict and one was on the fence, so it was essentially 4.5 - 3.5).

It was tough. There are so many things to consider when it comes to arguing a case, rules of evidence, rules of procedure, hearsay rules. Then there are witness problems - some witnesses are helpful, some are not so helpful, some who should be good witnesses turn out to be harmful witnesses - for example, it got to a point with one of my witnesses on redirect where I had to flat out tell him the facts, which I normally would not have gotten away with. Then you have the testimony you are unsure about - the stuff from the defense. We did not get to hear from the defense, no theory as to their case, no exculpatory evidence, heck, we didn't even see the defendant until the trial. We had to anticipate not just what the defense's story was but what their witnesses were going to say and then adjust to what they really said on the fly. Trial lawyers need a quick mind and the ability to focus on several things at once. This is multitasking for people's freedom, sometimes lives. It's fun, but I think it was fun for me more because it was a rare occurrance.

I have plenty of room to improve. I need to do a better job understanding the rules of evidence, understanding the rules of procedure, and especially not leading the witnesses, but the important thing for me is the knowledge that if I have to make a living, I could be a criminal trial lawyer.

Opening Statement, First Draft

May it please the Court?

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury,

Today, you have been called by the state to take a test. This test has but one, true/false question: “Richard Steven Mantooth is guilty of burglary of a habitation.” You don’t have to go this alone, though. We will paint a picture for you, one which will lead you to the correct answer. Consider the facts and evidence carefully, though, because only the correct answer will lead to justice being served.

Joseph and Katharine Bass are your neighbors. Like all of you, they live in Newtown. They are not natives; they came to Newtown pursuing their piece of the American dream – a home of their own in a quiet, peaceful neighborhood, the type of neighborhood we all strive to keep alive. The Basses wanted a yard, a place for their child to play, a place for barbeques, a place with a patio, where they could sit on a warm summer evening and drink lemonade while their son chased fireflies. They wanted a street, with sidewalks upon which their son could learn to ride his bike, and friends with whom to play ball. The Bass family found that home at 316 North Manus Drive, and for three years, they had all this, here in Newtown.

Then, just after they rang in the new year last year, something happened to their serene world. On January 17^th, while her husband was at work, Katharine was called away on an errand, a short jaunt from home, one of those things that we all have to do from time to time. Like most errands, she was not gone long, less than an hour. But that’s all it took to destroy the tranquility the Basses found in our town.

It was like those “what’s different in this picture” invasions – one where everything looked right, but was certainly not. The house seemed normal enough at first glance, but quickly, Katharine noticed something askew. The Bass’ bedrooms, the most private places in their home, where they felt most secure, had heard the steps of foreign feet. Their dressers, probed by strange hands, dirty fingers rifling the private recesses of their home.

These hands didn’t stop at disturbing the security the Basses had come to know in our town. They took from the Basses. The police report said jewelry and radios, total value between $2500 and $300 were stolen, but that’s only because there were no boxes marked security, or memories, and no report could estimate the sentimental value of those items stolen.

The next day, January 18^th, the police receive a call from a local pawn shop. A man was in, trying to sell jewelry and radios – the very same items those foreign footsteps walked off with from the Bass house the day before. That man was Richard Steven Mantooth.

The state will introduce evidence demonstrating that Richard Steven Mantooth entered into the Bass’ home at 316 North Manus Drive on January 17^th of last year, without permission. The state will show that Mr. Mantooth intended to commit a theft from the Bass’ home. It will show that Mr. Mantooth took from the Bass’ home, without permission, two transistor radios, jewelry, including a brooch, an antique lapel watch, and an heirloom watch. The state will offer evidence that Mr. Mantooth then took his ill-gotten gains to a local pawn shop, where he intended to sell the items. The state will show through evidence that Richard Steven Mantooth is guilty of burglary of a habitation.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, the state has one question for you to answer: “Richard Steven Mantooth is guilty of burglary of a habitation, true or false?” By the end of this trial, you will have been provided with all the information you will need to reach the right conclusion. If you believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Richard Mantooth is guilty of burglary of a habitation, then you will answer true. If there is ANY reasonable doubt, after hearing all the evidence, then you will answer false. Your answer will be the right answer, so make sure you are well prepared to find it.

Voir Dire

Most states pronounce this in the French fashion, "Vwah Deer," but Texans know better. Here, it's pronounced like it looks, "voy-er die-er"

That's what we did in Advocacy today. It was fun. But I don't know if I'd like doing it "for real."

Lots of good stuff, though. There's a lot to jury selection and deselection than meets the eye.

Criminal Trial Advocacy

I will be playing the lawyer again on Tuesday. The exercise this week is expert witness testimony. I know we're the plaintiff, and I think we're trying to establish that the drowning was murder, not an accident. The expert is a medical examiner who will be testifying on the expert work product that was produced by a different medical examiner.

There will be 3 of us on the prosecution team - myself and the two minitrial prosecutors from the first minitrial.

My minitrial partner will be doing voir dire in three weeks with the minitrial prosecutors from the third minitrial; I think I am the more fortunate of the two. Jury selection is a valuable skill to have, but I have already sat in on it once for a Courts Martial, so I'm looking forward to doing the direct and redirect of the expert witness.

Time to get back to work.