Background

The Defendant Jack Rubenstein, alias Jack Ruby, was charged with the November 24, 1963, slaying of Lee Harvey Oswald, accused assassin of President John Kennedy. Oswald was shot to death in the basement of the Dallas City Jail as he was being transferred to the County Jail. Testimony in Ruby's murder with malice trial began on March 4, 1964. Jury argument began on March 13th. The jury convicted the defendant Ruby and fixed his penalty at death. Ruby's conviction was reversed on appeal for failure of the trial court to grant a change of venue and for the improper admission of an oral confession. Ruby was scheduled to be retried in 1967 for murder with malice on a change of venue to Wichita Fall, Texas. While in jail awaiting retrial, Ruby became ill with pneumonia. He was transferred to Parkland Hospital, where he was diagnosed with terminal cancer. He died in January of 1967.

The shooting of Oswald occurred before a national television audience. (1) Indeed, ten of twelve jurors seated to try the case had observed the television footage prior to being called for jury service. Jury selection lasted approximately two weeks. The trial, which took place in Dallas, Texas, lasted approximately ten days.

Ruby's primary defense was that of temporary insanity. His defenders produced evidence to support a claim that at the time of the shooting, the Defendant was in a fugue state resulting from a psychomotor epileptic seizure.

What follows is the edited jury argument of Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade, Assistant Prosecutors William F. Alexander, Frank Watts and A. D. (Jim) Bowie, and defense attorneys Melvin Belli, Joe Tonahill and Phil Burleson.

Text 2. Прочитайте текст и устно его переведите.

PROSECUTION OPENING ARGUMENT TO THE JURY

BY MR. WILLIAM F. ALEXANDER(fragment 1):

May it please the Court.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury Panel.

I call your attention in this case, that the administration of criminal justice, under our law and under our Constitution, is on trial. I review this evidence with you and let us together see if the State has met its burden of proof, and what reasonable and logical deduction we can make from the evidence in the case.

You will recall that the first three witnesses for the State were Dallas News people: They were Don Campbell, there was John Newnam, and there was Georgia Mayer.

You will recall that Mr. Campbell told you that he first saw the Defendant, Jack Ruby, on November 22nd, 1963, the date that President Kennedy met his death, during the parade here in Dallas. At 12:00 o'clock noon. That the Defendant was there in the Dallas News offices, in the advertising offices on the second floor. He told you that from the building, the Dallas News Building, and looking through the window on the northwest side, that you could see the Texas Schoolbook Depository Building. He told you that it was five short blocks from the Dallas News Building down to the Depository. Then at 12:25, when he left for lunch, Jack Ruby was still taking care of his business in the Dallas News offices.

John Newnam told you that at 12:40 he came in; that Jack Ruby was there in the same place, in the same office that Don Campbell had seen him. He told you how that Ruby was still there at 1:30.

Text 3. Прочитайте текст и устно его переведите.

PROSECUTION OPENING ARGUMENT TO THE JURY

BY MR. WILLIAM F. ALEXANDER(fragment 2):

The girl, Miss Mayer, told you that she came in about 12:35 and she too saw the Defendant until about 1:30.

I call that to your attention for this reason. Here we have a picture of a man who, while he, through his defenses, professes love for the President to the extent that he would take it upon himself to kill the handcuffed accused assassin of the President, out of love for the President and his family. Yet I call your attention, he did not see fit to come from the Dallas News to view the parade. This man who loved the President so much to kill for him, this man who loved Mrs. Kennedy and the children so much that he wanted to kill the alleged assassin; that man who loved so much, could not even stir himself enough to walk five blocks down to see the President and his wife.

Text 4. Прочитайте текст и устно его переведите.

PROSECUTION OPENING ARGUMENT TO THE JURY

BY MR. WILLIAM F. ALEXANDER(fragment 3):

So I tell you that shows you the kind of a mind and heart that this Defendant has; and it shows you what kind of a defense that he has urged. Now, the next witness that we brought you was--one of the next witnesses we brought you was Mr. John Rutledge of the Dallas News. He told you how he worked as a police reporter at the City Hall Building; and how that evening of Friday, November 22nd, after the President had been killed, that he reported up at the City Hall; that he saw Jack Ruby up on the third floor outside of Captain Fritz's Homicide and Robbery Bureau office; that the Defendant was milling around in the hall, that he was assisting the out of state, out of town news media people, that he was pointing out the personalities of the Police Department as they came in there. He told you how that he was talking a lot, that he was staying in front of the door.

He characterized the Defendant as a loud-mouthed extrovert, as did the other people in thumbnail description of him.

He told you also how that around midnight he saw the Defendant down in the basement, where the viewing of Oswald was held. And he told you how that the Defendant went back upstairs and was milling around the third floor again.

I tell you it is a reasonable deduction and a logical inference, from the evidence, along with the testimony of the other witnesses that saw him up there, that Jack Ruby at that time was trying to get near Lee Harvey Oswald.

Text 5. Прочитайте текст и устно его переведите.

PROSECUTION OPENING ARGUMENT TO THE JURY

BY MR. WILLIAM F. ALEXANDER(fragment 4):

We know from the testimony that Jack Ruby, in the assembly room, was over against the wall, and between him and Oswald were reporters and police officers to the extent that he could not have completed an assassination attempt at that time.

We showed you, we brought you the witnesses that told you that Jack Ruby was over at KLIF Radio Station; shortly after that, that he took some sandwiches over there at around l:40, and he stayed there until after the 2:00 o'clock broadcast of the newsmen for KLIF, that he stayed until about 2:20.

Now, you perhaps wondered why we brought Officer Simms, who testified that around l0:30, this Defendant called him on the phone about sandwiches. If anybody had the idea that good old big-hearted Jack had brought those sandwiches for KLIF, they were mistaken, because we know now that earlier in the evening, at around l0:30, while Lee Harvey Oswald was in Captain Fritz's office, that this Defendant phoned the Homicide and Robbery Bureau and he talked to Officer Simms, and he told Simms that he had some sandwiches and would like to bring them into the office.

Now, for what purpose? I think this evidence showed an unnatural wanting on the part of this Defendant to be in the presence of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Text 6. Прочитайте текст и устно его переведите.

PROSECUTION OPENING ARGUMENT TO THE JURY

BY MR. WILLIAM F. ALEXANDER(fragment 5):

We follow the Defendant's steps then, we know that after he left KLIF, if we can believe George Senator and Larry Crawford, the boy whose eyes wiggled, perhaps you noticed ways his eyes snapped up and down as if perhaps he was having a little trouble, but George Senator told you that about 3:00 o'clock in the morning, Jack Ruby, his roommate, or at least his apartment mate, woke him up -- "Get up" -- told him all about these things he had been doing, what had happened. They called -- or Jack called Larry Crawford down at the Carousel Club, and they got in Jack Ruby's car, they picked up Larry, according to George Senator. After they picked up Larry, they immediately went out off of Hall and the Expressway; they photographed the "Impeach Earl Warren" sign. George Senator told you that they came right straight back to the Southland Hotel Coffee Shop; that they had coffee, that they dropped Larry off, and then they went home.

ask George very carefully about it, "George, did he get out of the car and go in any business establishment?"

Text 7. Прочитайте текст и устно его переведите.

PROSECUTION OPENING ARGUMENT TO THE JURY

BY MR. WILLIAM F. ALEXANDER(fragment 6):

"No, he did not."

"But before he got there, did he?"

"No."

"But before you got Larry, did he?"

"No."

"But when -- the time you got Larry and went to photograph the sign, did he get out and go some place?"

"No."

On the way back he did say that they came by the post office. But he said before they got to the post office that Jack didn't lose his presence and go in any business establishment. From the post office over to the Southland Hotel Coffee Shop, Jack didn't leave to go in any business establishment.

Larry Crawford told you substantially the same thing. But, what I wonder about is this: George Senator and Larry Crawford tell you -- both tell you that Jack Ruby did not leave their presence to go in any business establishment, yet we have those two men from the Dallas Times Herald, Mr. Roy Pryor, who was working in the composing room; and then the other man, whose name I do not recall at this moment, both told you that around 4:00 o'clock in the morning, that morning of Saturday, November 23rd, that Jack Ruby was in the Dallas Times Herald Building talking to them.

Text 7. Прочитайте текст и устно его переведите.

PROSECUTION OPENING ARGUMENT TO THE JURY

BY MR. WILLIAM F. ALEXANDER(fragment 6):

Now, if Jack Ruby had wanted to cut somebody up, and shot it out with him, cut it out with him, standing toe to toe, tie their hands together and cut it out; fight it with fists, that's something else. But my friends, you can't tell me that shooting a handcuffed man does not show the kind of a mind and heart regardless of social duty and fatally bent on mischief.

There is just no excuse for that sort of thing. That is "Judge Lynch" at its worst.

That is the thing, the very thing our law is designed to prevent. For over two hundred years we have tried to establish a government that we can be proud of. We have tried to eliminate the lynch law; we have tried to exact punishment under the law, under proper surroundings like this. Under a proper judge before a jury like you people, so that justice may be done.

Lee Harvey Oswald didn't get justice.

Now, I am not going to try to defend him but I will say this, Lee Harvey Oswald loved life and he had a right to draw every breath that God, and Dallas County Government, the Government of Texas and of the United States Government would let him draw.

Lee Harvey Oswald cannot be recalled--he is dead, he is silent. And the Lord alone knows what secret --

MR. BELLI: Wait just a minute.

MR. ALEXANDER: -- went to the grave with him.

MR. BELLI: Wait just a minute, there is no issue here whatsoever, my friend knows it, that Lee Harvey took any secrets to his grave with him.

THE COURT: Sustain the objection to it.

MR. TONAHILL: Will you instruct the jury?

THE COURT: I will instruct the jury to disregard that last statement.

MR. ALEXANDER: Now, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, there is no question about malice, no question about intent. I do want to talk to you about this psychomotor business. We brought you eight doctors that told you that psychomotor variant is not a disease; it is a reading off of an EEG chart; that was denominated psychomotor variant by Dr. Gibbs.

So, they raise the question, "Is this man of unsound mind?

Now, Jack has watched these proceedings intently. You have seen the expressions on his face. You can take that into consideration.

Text 8. Прочитайте текст и устно его переведите.

PROSECUTION OPENING ARGUMENT TO THE JURY

BY MR. WILLIAM F. ALEXANDER(fragment 7):

We know from the testimony that the clinic was adequate, it was proper, and that the tests were administered properly.

We know that the blood serology, the spinal fluid, the skull X-rays, the chest X-rays and the neurological examination, were all negative.

We know that the nerves in his head, and I guess they probably tapped his knees to see if his feet would click, all those tests were negative.

Dr. Towler told you that on the basis of this EEG, which he had submitted to Dr. Gibbs, that he diagnosed this man as having a psychomotor variant, like it was a form of epilepsy, trying to bring in the epilepsy business, fugue state, unconscious, no will, no recall, et cetera, et cetera.

He also said, under the hypothetical question that was asked him on the bare facts of the case, that he believed the man knew the difference between right and wrong and understood the nature and consequences of his act.

Text 9. Прочитайте текст и устно его переведите.

PROSECUTION OPENING ARGUMENT TO THE JURY

BY MR. WILLIAM F. ALEXANDER(fragment 8):

Now, Ladies and Gentlemen, just one more word and I will close.

I tell you that we have proved this case beyond a reasonable doubt. We have proved malice; we have proved the intent; we have proved the condition of this man's mind.

This is a wanton killing.

We know under the evidence what kind of a man this is.

I tell you that Jack Ruby misjudged public temperament. He thought that he could kill Oswald, that perhaps he would be a hero by doing it.

I say he had bad judgment. He also wanted to be a hero, and I submit to you wanted to become famous and make money out of the act.

Now, Ladies and Gentlemen, under all those facts I tell you that he is nothing but a thrill killer seeking notoriety. He thought he could get away with it because of the condition of the public temperament at that time.

Now, that's the kind of a thing that the law seeks to deter.

I tell you that warrants the death penalty.

In all ages we have had persons like this, that strange part of the population that the law seeks to deter.

I tell you that the death penalty is warranted and with all the earnestness at my command, I ask you to vote the death penalty for Jack Ruby because of the crime that he has committed; because of his flagrant disregard, not only of the life of Lee Harvey Oswald, but because he has mocked American justice while the spotlight of the world is on us.

I thank you for your attention.

Text 10. Прочитайте текст и устно передайте его содержание.

STENOGRAPHY OF THE WILLIAM KIDD CASE (fragment)

"My Lord, and you gentlemen of the jury, this is an indictment of murder. The indictment sets forth: `That William Kidd, on the 30th of October, on the high sea, on the coast of Malabar, did assault one William Moore on board a ship called the Adventure, whereof William Kidd was captain, struck him with wooden bucket, hooped with iron, on the side of the head near the right ear, and that of this bruise William Moore died the next day, and so that William Kidd has murdered the same person.' To this indictment the defendant pleaded not guilty; if we prove him guilty, you must find him so. We will prove this as particular as can be, that William Kidd was captain of the ship, and that William Moore was under him in the ship, and that without any provocation the accused gave him the blow whereof he died. It will appear to be a most barbarous fact, to murder a man in this manner; for the man gave him no provocation. This William Moore was a gunner in the ship and this William Kidd abused him, and called him a "lousy dog," and upon a civil answer by Moore the accused took his bucket and knocked him on the head, whereof he died the next day".

Captain Kidd was found guilty of Moore's murder and sentenced to death by hanging. The sentence was carried out on May 23, 1701, at the execution dock near the Tower of London. Kidd's body was gibbeted. (B-Movie - Captain Kidd with Charles Laughton)

Text 11. Прочитайте текст и устно передайте его содержание.

SAMPLE DEFENCE HOOKS – EASTWOOD CASE (fragment)

"This is a photograph of Bill South (displaying photograph of deceased). Bill was 25 years old when he was shot to death by this defendant (pointing), Oscar Eastwood. This defendant was the 29 year old ex-boyfriend of Glenda Williams. Ms. Williams was cooking breakfast for Bill, when this man (pointing at the defendant), Oscar Eastwood, crashed through the front door of Ms. Williams' apartment and fired three bullets from this.38 snub-nosed revolver (displaying the weapon) into Bill's back."

"For most of us, convenience stores are a place to stop and shop. But for David North (looking at the defendant) a convenience store is a place to stop and rob."

"When the prosecutor read the indictment, I saw the looks of horror on all of your faces. This is a despicable crime. What could be more terrible than shaking a helpless 6-month-old baby to death? I just want you to know that this woman, Mary Riley, (putting her hand on the accused's shoulder) did not commit this crime. Mary Riley is not guilty. And that brings us to what Judge Smith has given us twenty minutes to talk about -- getting blamed for something you didn't do."

Text 12. Прочитайте текст и устно передайте его содержание.

SAMPLE PROSECUTION HOOK - ENRONE CASE (fragment)

"The government will take you inside the doors of what was once the seventh largest corporation in this country, Enron. In the year before Enron declared bankruptcy, two men at the helm of the company told lie after lie about the true financial condition of Enron, lies that propped up the value of their own stock holdings and lies that deprived the common investors of information that they needed to make fully informed decisions about their own Enron stock. You will see that the Defendants Lay and Skilling knew key facts about the true condition of Enron, facts that the investing public did not know. With that information, Defendants Lay and Skilling sold tens of millions of dollars of their own Enron stock. The victims in this case, the investing public, their employees, those who did not have that information, those who were not able to sell their stock before Enron entered bankruptcy were not as fortunate as these two men. These men are Defendants Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling. This is a simple case. It is not about accounting. It is about lies and choices. This case will show you that these Defendants worked to lie and to mislead. They violated the duty of trust placed in them. They violated it by telling lie after lie about the true financial condition of Enron."

(The preceding was the prosecution "hook" in opening statement at the 2006 Enron fraud trial of Jeffrey Skilling & Kenneth Lay. On 5-25-06, Skilling was convicted on some eighteen counts; Lay was convicted on all counts. Lay died some weeks thereafter at a ski resort.)

Text 13. Прочитайте текст и устно передайте его содержание.

AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU MIGHT SAY, AS A DEFENSE LAWYER, IN OPENING STATEMENT

(Introduction) Ladies and gentlemen, my name is (name of defense counsel). Together with my colleagues over here at this table, I'm proud and privileged to represent this man (indicating the defendant). Today is one of the two times - the other is jury argument - that I get to talk to you directly about this case. This is an important time, and I am going to try my best to communicate what happened in this case.

(Stating your theme) This is a case of / This case is about (state your theme, e.g., jealousy, greed, lust, etc.)

(Setting the scene for your story) To begin to comprehend what happened here, we have to go roll back the clock to (state time and place where your trial story begins).

(Let me walk you back) Let me walk (take) you back to (state the place and time).

(Boil the case down) If we could boil this case down to everyday language, it would be this: (without exaggeration, state the competing theories of the case in the form that best highlights the merits of your theory and deflates the merits of the opposition's)

(Client not guilty) Members of the jury, (name the defendant) is not guilty, not guilty, not guilty.

(Discounting opposition's theme and asserting yours) This is not a case of (state the prosecution's theme, e.g., see no evil, hear no evil). This is a case of (state the defensive theme, e.g., there was no evil).

Text 14. Прочитайте текст и устно передайте его содержание.

AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU MIGHT SAY, AS A DEFENSE LAWYER, IN OPENING STATEMENT

(Purpose of opening statement) The purpose of an opening statement is not to tell you what the evidence is. The witnesses and the exhibits will do that. Nor is the purpose of an opening statement for me to try to imprint on your minds every important fact. If we tried to do that, we would be here for an awfully long time. So what is an opening statement? An opening statement is sort of like getting someone ready for a trip that they have never taken before. You try to get them oriented to certain signs on the road and certain landmarks, so that, as they actually take the trip, they understand where they are going, where they are and where they have been. My purpose here today is to give you a preview of what the defense (or government) expects the evidence will show. During opening statements, we lawyers are not permitted to argue the case or to explain the meaning of the evidence. What we are allowed to do is to tell you what our defense is and to tell you what the evidence will and will not show. In jury argument at the end of the case, after all the evidence has been presented, we will come back to discuss and explain the meaning of the evidence. [Note: It's popular today for the "trial advocacy" professors and young self-designated masters of "trial theater" to denigrate the metaphors that try to explain the purpose of the opening statement as a "road map," a "birds-eye view," a "summary," a "view through the port hole," etc. Instead, the modern teaching is that one should maximize the primacy affect by going directly into storytelling without the introduction. My suggestion is that you should do what you think is best from the jurors' perspective.]

Text 15. Прочитайте текст и устно передайте его содержание.

AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU MIGHT SAY, AS A DEFENSE LAWYER, IN OPENING STATEMENT

(Opening statement in lawsuit differs from politician's speech) An opening statement in a law suit might seem like a politician's stump speech where get all sort of promises for the future. We lawyers do make promises of what the facts are and what we are going to prove. But there's a big difference between the promises we lawyers make and what a politician promises to get your vote. The big difference is that in a criminal case you vote after the lawyers try to make good on their promises. With a politician you vote before you know whether s/he'll make good on them. In politics your vote is an act of faith in which you hope the politician will keep his promises. Lots of politicians break the faith we have placed in them. They come into office with a bunch of promises, and they leave with a bunch of alibis. But in this courtroom your vote is not an act of faith. You know before you vote if we lawyers have kept the promises we have made in opening statement. You will know which of the two sides has lived up to their commitments. I'll have more to say about that when we make our closing statements to you at the end of the case before you retire to the jury room to deliberate on a verdict.

(Remember this) If you don't remember anything else I'm going to say in the next few minutes, I ask you to remember this: (state the essence of your defensive theory, e.g., the defendant never conspired or agreed with anyone, the defendant used a reasonable amount of force to protect himself from a deadly attack, etc.)

(Response to prosecutor's claims) You've just heard somebody make a bunch of claims here about (name the client). as though those claims were gospel truth. What the prosecutor just said is nothing more than a claim of what s/he expects the evidence to prove. I intend no rudeness when I say, don't believe a word of it until you've heard all the evidence. You don't know what the facts are until you've heard the evidence. They (indicating the prosecutors) have the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and nobody knows anything until they start to carry this burden.

(Prosecutor's story analogized to a few pages in a book) If we compare the true story of this case to a book, the government will only have a few pages. When our turn comes, we will try to present a bunch more, so you will have the whole book.

("Can you see my hand?" demonstration to show that one needs to be aware of both sides of the matter before coming to any conclusions) (Hold the palm of you hand to the jury.) Can you see my hand? No, you can't see my hand. Not until I've turned it over and showed you both sides can you see my hand.

(Charges/accusations not facts) I want to talk about this (these) charge(s) (or accusation(s)). Charges or accusations) are not facts. They are simply a claim of what these prosecutors hope to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Text 16. Прочитайте текст и устно передайте его содержание.

AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU MIGHT SAY, AS A DEFENSE LAWYER, IN OPENING STATEMENT

(Multiple defendants - much evidence has nothing to do with the client) In this opening, as in every other point in the trial, I am going to speak to you throughout this case for one person and one person only, (name the client). There is a lot of evidence in this case that will turn out not to involve (name the client) at all and that is not offered by the prosecution about (name the client). Sometimes, I may cross-examine a witness simply to show that the evidence that the witness offered doesn't have anything to do with (name the client). When you hear evidence, please ask yourself "which Defendant does that evidence apply to? Is that evidence connected to (name the client)?"

(Prosecution goes first because it has burden of proof - defense will be putting on evidence and also cross-examining government witnesses) In trials, somebody has to go first. In this case, as in every case where the government is claiming somebody did something wrong, they go first., the prosecutors. Maybe it's because they have the burden of trying to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. So when it is our turn, we will present evidence to raise those reasonable doubts. But even before it is our turn, we will be cross-examining the witnesses that are presented here to bring out some of these reasonable doubts. Sometimes it will be just to flesh out the details, and sometimes to show that a government witness is biased or prejudiced or even being untruthful with you or relying on faulty or incomplete information.

(Defender as being a part of law enforcement) I consider myself as being in law enforcement. Yes, I do. As a lawyer, I enforce what are the most important laws, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

(Defender as prosecution's adversary) I am the prosecutor's adversary, their opponent, the thorn in their side. Like any good lawyer, I am my client's champion. I represent poor people, people of color, and, in many cases, I am appointed by the court to speak on behalf of those who can't afford to hire a lawyer.

(Prosecution made its case sound like sleek, shiny sports car - but under the hood you find two mice on a treadmill - defense opening)

You’ve just heard the prosecutor describe what on the surface sounds incriminating. It’s going to be hard to keep an open mind. When you hear claims of the sort s/he just made, it’s hard not to start making up your own mind, no matter how many times His/Her Honor urges you to keep and open mind until you’ve heard all the evidence. Listening to the prosecutor, I thought that his description of the government’s case made it sound like it was some kind of beautiful sports car, sleek and shiny on the outside. But I will tell you that when we open the hood and look at what makes it run, you are going to find two mice on a treadmill.

Text 17. Прочитайте текст и устно передайте его содержание.

AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU MIGHT SAY, AS A DEFENSE LAWYER, IN OPENING STATEMENT

(Opening composed of several (five) parts) This opening statement is composed of three parts. The good news is that I have just finished the first part - the introduction. Next, I'm going to tell you what the case is about. Then, I am going to walk you through some of the most relevant facts and events. After that, I'm going to spend a few minutes telling you how we are going to prove those facts and events to you. Finally, I am going to make a few concluding remarks.

(What case is about) What is this case about? Quite simply, this is a case about (begin the explanation of the case).

(Explanation of proof) How are we going to prove to you that (state the element of the offense or the defense)?

(Mentioning the anticipated jury instructions on the law) If I'm right (or correct) (or I predict that) the judge will give you an instruction (or a limiting instruction) telling you (precisely state the contents of the anticipated instruction).

(Defender's promise as an introduction or closer to the discussion of the defense story of the case) So this is (name the client) promise to you of what we confidently believe and expect that the evidence will show. This is our promise to you.

(Lawyer's promise not like a politician's) You may think a lawyer's promise is akin to a politician's promise, where you hear the promise and then you vote and then you wait to see if the person you elected keeps their promise. It's different in a courtroom. You won't vote until you hear the evidence, and you will see who keeps their promise and who does not before you write the ending of this story with your verdict.

Text 18. Прочитайте текст и устно передайте его содержание.

AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU MIGHT SAY, AS A DEFENSE LAWYER, IN OPENING STATEMENT

(Truth as a one step at a time journey) Arriving at the truth is a journey that we will take one step at a time.

(Defense witness will give sworn testimony entirely at odds with prosecutor’s theory of case - defense opening) You are going to hear from a witness who will present sworn testimony entirely at odds with what the prosecutor just told you, testimony that directly contradicts the prosecution’s theory of the case

(Defense will call witnesses the prosecution could have called but won’t - defense opening) We will call witnesses that the prosecution could have called. but won’t, but for reasons that will become apparent.

(You will demand more than the prosecutor can produce - defense opening). When you have heard all the evidence in this case, you will recognize that you will honor truth and justice by telling the government that it hasn’t solved this crime and that you won’t rubber stamp it’s theory of the case. You will demand more of the government.

(Asking yourself if you are qualified to sit in judgment)

You come in here and you wonder if you are equipped to be a juror. You have never had any experience with the law, the law books, and you wonder ‘What makes me qualified to be a juror?’ The simple answer is the truest. It's the common sense you have developed by living as long as you have and undergoing the life experiences you have faced. This makes you the most qualified people in this world to be sitting in judgment in this case. So please don’t abandon that gift of common sense that you all have. Listen to the evidence, and you will do what’s right.

(Keep an open mind until all evidence in; important stuff may come near end) I ask you, please keep an open mind until you have heard all the evidence. Sometimes the very last thing you hear about some situation is the thing that decides it for you. Sometimes it's what you hear near the end that is the solution to the whole problem.

(Concluding portion of opening; defender refuses to carry burden of proof; defense will return at end of case to explain how the prosecution failed to carry its burden) I have told you what we believe the evidence will be. I am not, by doing this, going to assume a burden of proof that we don't have. No, members of the jury, the prosecutors have that burden of proving their claims beyond a reasonable doubt, and when this case is all over and the evidence is in, I will stand before you again and point out the ways in which we believe they have not carried their burden of proof.

Text 19. Прочитайте текст и устно передайте его содержание.

Дата добавления: 2015-09-07