Saturday, April 22, 2006

If they don't it improper?

Final trial is done. See it on an upcoming Pay-per-view special: Team Law Review v. Team Bar Review

I think that Team Bar Review came solidly out on top.

The Recap:

  • My partner started our opening statement in an odd fashion. After all, this is a situation where we are claiming that it was self-defense: "This case is a simple matter where my client fired his gun in anger" But he recovered and kicked ass.
  • On direct of our client, the Law Review team objected to a question on reputation when the foundation had been questionably laid. My partner rephrased the question and then laid the foundation by leading the entire way. I could hardly contain myself as I sat there listening to leading question after leading question on direct. Using peripheral vision, I kept checking to see if opposing counsel was going to object...and they remained silent as they listened intently to the witness just answer yes to lengthy string of questions.
  • I could tell that my opponents and their chosen witness had never fired a gun before. Nor have they fired one in the dark. [Alex, I'll take Muzzle Flash for 50]. The fact that the 'eye-witness' didn't see a flash of light when he was supposedly looking directly at the shooting as it occurred was just a tad fishy.
  • However...the judge didn't like this argument. She also didn't like the fact that I questioned the witness in a way that attacked the veracity of his testimony. I just find it odd when someone says that he was reading that day's paper, at 11pm, on his porch, at night, when he lived less then 200 feet from a popular bar. Just seems fishy to me. Oh well. I led the entire cross and that always make me happy [and also was never successfully objected to by Team Law Review...that makes me more happy]
  • Law Reviews Close was an exercise in doing exactly what the textbook says and exactly as one who game plans for a text-based opponent, made my life very easy
  • My close was logical. Here's what happened, what the witnesses said, what you should believe, and then here's the verdict that is only logical*.
    • *Not-guilty
  • The Jury Instructions that the two sides agreed on (which I had constructed from an a variety of Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions) gave the state three elements to prove:
    • That the defendant's acts caused the death of the victim
      • We didn't argue this one, our boy shot him...can't really win them all can you?
    • That the defendant intended to cause the death of the victim
      • Well...the state kinda skipped over this hurdle. By skipped I mean didn't say a word about intent. Nada.
    • That the defendant was without justification in acting the way that he did
      • The state kinda glossed over the evidence that portrayed the victim as a bully, as a guy who started fights, and a guy that carried a hunting knife. You know...those mindless details.
So that was the trial. I had fun. I wish I could do this all the time. So much more fun then picking fights with the activist gunner in a Civil Rights Criminal Procedure Business Organizations Class. Time for some sleep. And then some Scotch.