Trial of the Semester!
Trial Advocacy class ended last night and it ended with a bang, and the bang came out of the gun fired by fictitious criminal defendant Merle Rausch, who Co-counselor Elloitt Reibman and I had been assigned to represent. Elliott and I had been preparing, for weeks, to defend Rausch on the grounds of self-defense.
(That’s a photo of Elliott and me at Counsel Table, taken right before the judge [who is a real judge] told us that we weren’t allowed to take photos in the courtroom.)
Merle Rausch, we argued, feared for his life because the week before the “incident” occurred—we called it an “incident,” not a “shooting”—the now-dead guy (who was a foot taller than Raush) grabbed him by the arm and threatened him.
(That photo shows a reenactment of the in-court reenactment of the arm grab, as witnessed by a bar patron.)
The State claimed that the now-dead guy was ten away from Raush and standing upright when Rausch fired the gun.
We claimed that the now-dead guy was just three feet away from Rausch and lunging at him when Rausch fired the gun.
The biggest problem for the State was the trajectory of the bullet, as documented in the Medical Examiner’s Report. The bullet entered next to the now-dead guy’s nipple and it exited right above his waist. In other words, it traveled downward.
During Closing, I argued that the trajectory of the bullet suggested one of two things:
1) that the now-dead guy was lunging (i.e., at a forward angle) when Rausch fired the gun
or
2) that Rausch had rocket powered shoes that allowed him to get high enough such that when he fired the gun, the bullet traveled the trajectory it did travel.
Yes, the diagram was silly, but silliness was the whole point. I wanted the jury—even though we didn’t really have a jury—to say, “That’s ridiculous!” when they heard me say “rocket powered shoes,” and then I wanted them to realize that the real ridiculous thing was the State’s claim that the now-dead guy wasn’t lunging at Rausch when Rausch fired the gun.
After the trial was done, one of the other side’s witnesses came up to me and told me that she thought the diagram was “WAY out of place.”
Do you think the same?
Technorati Tags: Courtroom, Final Exam, Rausch, Trial Strategy, Trial Law
Posted in Classroom Observations | 
Subscribe to this feed
April 25th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
She’s probably just upset that the diagram dudes had no clothes on. Naked in court! My goodness.
You got your point across. You hopefully convinced the jury/etc that there is no plausible way for the bullet trajectory to have occured other than the one the defense is giving. I think your diagram was quite appropriate.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
out of place? SHE is out of place. the diagrams are relevant, poignant, and absolutely fab. well done.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Whether it was out of place or not doesn’t matter, as long as it was legitimately convincing. The diagram was substantively persuasive, it had shock value, and it precisely illustrated the theory of the case. I’ll admit bias as co-counsel, but out of place or not, that diagram won the case.
April 26th, 2007 at 8:02 am
i concur with co-counsel elliott. if it worked, than it’s effectiveness trumps it’s silliness. it does seem a bit of a gamble though. how’d it turn out?
April 26th, 2007 at 9:23 am
Counselor rob#3,
I don’t know how it turned out because we didn’t have a jury. I will say that it got a big reaction from the other attornies and from all the people playing witnesses when I pulled it out. So it made an impression at the least.
-Rick Lax
April 26th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
I think that your diagrams were wonderful…in fact, were I in your situation I probably would have made the exact same argument. Should I quit teaching martial arts and become a student in lawyer school?
April 26th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
p.s.
Great post laxy. I’m willing to buy the movie rights for no less than $10000000000000.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
For once I agree with Elliott. Well said.
But what’s up with Lise? You got a problem with naked dudes? What are you, some kind of dyke?
April 26th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
What if the guy was trying to duck from the gunfire?
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:27 am
Counselor Ryan,
Stick to the fu.
Counselor Miniver,
Good point. Shame the State didn’t bring it up.
-Rick Lax
May 25th, 2007 at 10:01 am
I once had an oral argument in a Motion to Dismiss involving a section 1983 case where the issue is how the Plaintiff crossed a road where he was tackled by a cop. I represented the cop who said the Plaintiff ran. The Plaintiff testified that he was picked up by the cop and carried 30 feet. I argued that there was no genuine issue of fact saying that there are three theories: 1) the cop’s version; 2) the Plaintiff’s version; and 3) that some pixie dust fell on the Plaintiff and he flew across the road. I argued that #2 and #3 had equal probabilities of being true. The Judge smiled but I lost the motion.
May 25th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Counselor Saperstein,
As somebody who hopes to use humor in court one day, your story gives me hope…but not too much.
-Rick Lax
June 20th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! zumhxpouveu
June 21st, 2007 at 4:40 pm
No one ever realizes that the other possibility is that Rausch flashed the gun, causing decedent to crouch and cringe in terror before the fatal bullet was fired.
That’s the only way for prosecution to win that case usually.
June 24th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Counselor Pirates,
Now that the case is over, I might as well tell you that you’re right and that Rausch did it.
-Rick Lax