You step into the courtroom, and review the court record. You have your evidence prepared, and you look to the defendant at your side.
[["The defense is ready, your honor."]]The murder trial begins with the prosecution's opening statement. You don't get your own. The prosecution says "Your honor, the evidence really is decisive. There was a witness at the scene of the crime, and the defendant was seen with the victim's blood literally on his hands. There is no reason to go on."
"Very well," the judge says. "Does the defense have any statments?"
[["Yes, your honor."]]
[["No, there is nothing."]]The prosecutor rolls his eyes. You request to hear the witness testify, and then cross-examine her.
The witness testifies, but once she finishes the prosecutor requests that the final verdict be given out. When you request to cross-examine the witness, the prosecutor snickers and rolls his eyes. You ignore him.
You notice that the witness made a mistake in the testimony regarding the time the witness saw the defendant after the murder. What do you want to do about this?
[[Press]]
[[Let it go.]]"Well then," says the judge. "I hereby proclaim the defendant [[guilty]]."You have failed. Your client will be executed. You question the witness on the time discrepancy, but before you finish the question, you hear a piercing "Objection, your honor! This question is irrelevant to the situation. The point is that the defendant was found a the scene of the crime with blood on his hands."
Before you can properly defend your point, the judge says, "The defense will refrain from questioning trivial details. Only clear contradictions with the evidence."
You look at the court record then. You could point out any of [[a few things.]]You don't see anyting wrong with this testimony - nothing that will prove your client's case to the judge. You give up. The judge asks if you have anything to say further.
[["No, there is nothing."]] [[The defendant's fingerprints weren't on the murder weapon.]]
[[The witness never actually saw the murder, only the defendant near the victim's body.]]
[[The defendant hasn't given his account of the incident.]]"But he could have wiped them, or could have worn gloves."
[[You argue...]]But the victim still had the blood on his hands. [[Explain that.]]Who cares? the court responds. Nobody can trust the words of a criminal.
[[What else?]][[The defendant's fingerprints weren't on the murder weapon.]]
[[The witness never actually saw the murder, only the defendant near the victim's body.]]
[["No, there is nothing."]] You propose that the defendant, as he claims, could have gotten the blood on his hands when he grabbed the victim after finding him dying in the alleyeway.
[[The judge considers this.]]But the prosecution cries out, "Your honor, this does not prove the defendant's innocence without a doubt. This could be true, but it could also be a lie. [[Why should we believe the defendant?"]]The judge agrees.
[[Anything more?]][[The defendant's fingerprints weren't on the murder weapon.]]
[[The defendant hasn't given his account of the incident.]]
[["No, there is nothing."]] That there were no gloves found at the scene, nor was the defendant wearing any. And there were no items that could have been used to wipe away the prints.
[[The judge considers.]]But the prosecution cries out, "Your honor, this does not prove the defendant's innocence without a doubt. The defense is just stalling for time!"
[[Anything else?]][[The witness never actually saw the murder, only the defendant near the victim's body.]]
[[The defendant hasn't given his account of the incident.]]
[["No, there is nothing."]]