Observations from a Criminal Trial

     The trial conducted was an aggravated assault and armed robbery case involving a defendant out of four perpetrators who was the only one to plead not guilty. The defendant was the driver of the vehicle and did not participate in the actual robbery of a Hispanic male in a local trailer park. From the very beginning the State did not have a very strong case against the defendant in regards to any damning evidence or testimony, however neither did the Defense have a very strong argument for his innocence. The trial came down to how well both the prosecution and the defense counsel could convince the jury of their argument. Exploring the methods, strategies, and tactics used by both attorneys and the impact they had on the jury.

     The treatment of witnesses by both attorneys was a crucial element in how their arguments were viewed by the jury. The prosecution began by politely asking the witnesses how they were, how their day was, and how they felt about testifying; these opening questions allowed the prosecution to gently move into the actual questions after establishing a baseline rapport with the witness. When dealing with the victim and first hand witness both of whom required the use of a translator, the prosecution was softly spoken and emotionally supportive to give them the chance to fully explain themselves as best they could. While dealing with police witnesses the prosecution still retained the polite and supportive attitude but it became one of two professionals discussing methods and means creating a picture of competence and attention to detail for the jury. The defense counsel took a completely different approach to questioning the witnesses during cross-examination. Rude, arrogant, demeaning, and harsh are the best descriptions for how the defense conducted themselves during the process. While questioning the victim and the first hand witness the defense regularly became angry and spoke to them as if they were not particularly bright children and in both cross-examinations referred to them as “illiterate”. When questioning the police officers the defense gave pro-forma niceties before questioning the competence and intelligence of the officers as well as never referring to the victim or witness by name, but merely as “the hispanics”. During all of the questionings the defense would at several points attempt to accuse the witness of racism against blacks, as the only person being racist as observed in his references to “the hispanics” the defense was only able to further poison his argument. This treatment of the witnesses, polite and supportive from the side of the prosecution and rude and insulting from the side of the defense quickly colored anything presented in the eyes of the jury. The jury began to resent the way in which the defense conducted itself in regards to the witnesses as was apparently in both facial expressions and body language while the defense was asking questions.

Basic emotional triggers are still the most powerful and convincing part of any argument and the way the prosecution handled itself in relation to how the defense handled itself was easily and clearly seen in the reactions the jury had throughout the trial. Being polite, calling people by their names, giving them time to formulate their responses, and encouraging them to expound on their answers was the absolute best way to allow the jury to focus on the facts as they were presented because it didn't trip any courtesy issues that the jurors may have had.

     The questions asked during the examinations are the cornerstone of the trial and they must be able to clearly and eloquently describe both the event and the reasons for how they pertain to the defendant. The prosecution used clear and concise questions which had an easy to follow logical progression allowing the jury to be walked through each step of the case and how each piece fit into the larger whole. By building off the previous question and answer the entire event was laid out in a way that the jury was able to understand. In comparison to this was the defense’s questioning method which largely relied on confusing the jury by skipping back and forth between accusations of racism, incompetence, and mental acuity with little or no logical progression between them. When one line of questioning failed to produce the results desired, the defense would switch to another and then come back and ask the same questions again hoping for a different result. The tactic here was to potentially confuse the witness into giving two different answers however in action it only drew out the questioning past a time in which the jury would continue to pay attention. The second tactic used by the defense was to use transcripts from a previous hearing held over a year and a half ago to attempt to show that the witness was changing their story. This might have had some success if it was handled adroitly, however the only points made by the defense were very pedantic and shallow, the difference between words such as “wallet” as opposed to “money” or “dropped” as opposed to “tossed”. The use of quick and concise questions which flowed together on the part of the prosecution in relation to the confusing and complex questions asked by the defense further aligned the jury towards the prosecution.

The prosecutions questions were clear, concise, and had an easy to follow logical progression. The jurors could see how each question fit together as a whole to paint a picture of both the state's case and the events that transpired. The defense was extremely disjointed in their questions, switching from one topic to another at random and would continue to ask the same question multiple times at different stages of the questioning. This never gave the jury a solid picture of the defense and with the length of the questioning left them more confused than when the defense started. While working through the translator the prosecution managed to simplify the questions without talking down to the two witnesses which was another point in their favor as that's about all the defense did while they were questioning them.

     The physical examples used by both the prosecution and defense as props to give the jury a visual account of the case were quite varied. The prosecution used pre-made posters and pictures to simply and effectively show the jury what transpired while the defense used pencil sketches and marionette play acting. The pre-made props of the prosecution lent quite a bit of credibility to the testimony given by the witnesses as it gave the jury the ability to plot the events on a map; while the theater of the defense did little more than cause the courtroom to break out into laughter. The defense had the witnesses stand up and position themselves according to their testimony, as well as at one point walking out of the courtroom to try and determine “how far away was he when you saw him”. This was nothing more than a circus put on by the defense and it weakened their case as the jury doubted the professionalism of such stunts.

The prosecution had multiple props pre-made for the jury which were simple and effective and required very little explaining. The defense however used pen and paper, and physical actions, such as walking backwards, or jumping up and down, or positioning the witness; showed a marked difference between a professional approach to the case, and an almost lack of preparation. The defense's attempts were to give the jury a physical showing of the events which took place, which handled properly could have been very powerful, however the way they were used left a lot to be desired. The defense seemed almost to be playing up to the characterization of attorneys as portrayed on television in an attempt to give the jury an entertaining show so that they would remember the argument more than the facts of it.

     The defendant was found guilty of aggravated assault and not guilty of armed robbery as no gun was proven to have been used. This verdict could easily have gone either way if only the facts presented were taken into account, the deciding factor was the way in which both attorneys conducted themselves. The competent professionalism of the prosecution easily won over the jury in comparison to the angry vitriol and illogical and unfounded accusations of the defense. The method of presentation is clearly just as important as the evidence because even if the jury is charged with being impartial, subconscious decision will hold a large part in the verdict regardless.

The interesting part of this case is that in the state it occurred in, there was not a law for an accomplice after the fact. This means that an individual cannot be charged with a crime as an accomplice if they were unaware until after the crime occurred; such as in the case of the driver of a car. The defense's entire argument should have revolved around this as the evidence and the questioning presented that the defendant claimed he didn't know what they were doing, and said so during the police questioning which was recorded on video and played as evidence.