Long story short, I won. I didn`t have a watershed moment in the chutney (although I live for it, don`t worry), but I had some good nuggets on cross-examination, my closing argument went well, and most importantly, my client was PUMPED. It was a great way to have a challenging and amazing experience. Unlike openers, closures are supposed to be argumentative – you lay out all the pieces of the puzzle and then put them together for your investigator. This is a time to question the credibility of witnesses, to highlight your good testimony, to point out the bad things you pointed out in cross-examination, to draw conclusions from the evidence and, in general, to appeal to the common experience and common sense of the jury. After Witness A made this statement in court, the prosecution used it conclusively: Tuesday was our last real day of school, and we each wrote a closing statement for presentation and criticism. Closing arguments take place after all witnesses have been called and the evidence has been presented in its entirety at trial – after both sides have “let their case rest”. In general, the prosecutor or applicant comes first; The defence follows; And then the prosecution has a few minutes to refute (because it bears the burden of proof). This is the last thing a jury hears before the judge gives legal instructions and sends them for deliberation, so closing arguments are CRUCIAL ENOUGH. You complete the whole case by informing the judge/jury of the legal elements of the crime and how you proved them by the evidence presented (alternatively, the defense will talk about why there are still reasonable doubts). It`s not easy, but I had a good training on Tuesday – which came in handy for my closing argument three days later! 5:00 Final statement to the court (maximum 15 minutes for each party) In short, the process was more stressful and much more fun than I expected. At the same time, you try to (1) listen to the other party`s questions and (2) how the witness answers, while (3) you reject the right things (4) at the right time, and (5) think about how to use what you hear in your next question line or closing argument. I had papers EVERYWHERE – my own exam questions, post-it notes with scribbled notes, seven pieces printed in case I needed them to check a witness.
It was chaos. Because it was a court case, we argued before a judge rather than a jury. Roberta and I split the work equally, so I did a direct investigation into the mother`s best friend, a cross-examination of the father (which was so funny, we absolutely destroyed it) and gave the final argument. At 2pm on Friday afternoon, we met with our judge (a retired judge from Illinois), reviewed the pre-trial motions and got to work!! But we DID IT!!!!!! Lynn Simmons left the courtroom with joint and sole custody of her daughter, which we had requested. The judge didn`t grant the guilty divorce to either party (and we were UNABLE to prove adultery – boo) and alimony was up for determine, but mom got her daughter and I felt like a crazy champion. We also had about ninety minutes of feedback after the judge delivered his verdict, which ended the experiment on a really encouraging note. Her: Chutney, why were Tracy Marcinco`s curls ruined while she was watered? Her: Exactly. After all, isn`t the first cardinal rule of permanent preservation that it is forbidden to wet your hair at least 24 hours after receiving a perm, with the risk of disabling ammonium thioglycolate? If Congress took away the jurisdiction of the Federal Court, was it right? Or too much? Her: And if someone who, say, had 30 perms in his life, knew about this rule, and if you didn`t wash your hair, as I suspect you weren`t because your curls are still intact, you wouldn`t have heard the shot, and if you had actually heard the shot, Brooke Windham wouldn`t have had time. Hide the weapon before you are on the ground. Amanda Knox, an American student accused of killing her British roommate during a semester abroad in 2007.
It`s been a pretty amazing week. Her: [Cross-examining Chutney Windham] Ms. Windham, what did you do earlier that day? 2:00 Pre-trial motions, etc. (5-10 minutes during which we want to tell the judge what exhibits we wanted to use and argue about all the ones we wanted to exclude) Roberta and I were counsel for the plaintiff and represented the mother in this particular case. She and her husband made the following three points, in order of importance: Does the person bringing the lawsuit have the authority to do so? And, related. How on earth do you define standing??? Hon. Marina R. Bickford: Balliff, take the witness into custody where she will be charged with the murder of Joseph Windham. Dismisses the action; Madam.
Windham, you can go there. You know all about it. And no, it`s still not over. See above 😬. Does a federal court have jurisdiction over this case or should it be in a state court? “Witness A did not see the accused`s brake lights after he drove on the sidewalk. In fact, Witness A saw him accelerate! If you are sitting in a car and narrowly avoiding hitting a tree while running on a sidewalk, do you brake or accelerate? Can you sue the German government? (no) What about federal employees? (sometimes) In case you didn`t know if it was a happy or sad mood: “I wrote the film. I`m in the picture you just posted. But in short, here are the kinds of questions I`ve had in my little brain throughout the semester (and with a general sense of panic on Thursday): Release dates| Official websites| Business loans | Filming and production| Technical data military law until 12:30 It was very strange to leave the campus knowing that I would never be in another class or that I would never receive another cold call. 5:30 Questioning and court decision (about 10 minutes) Professor Stromwell: Personally, I am very honoured to introduce this year`s class representative. After a rather interesting start here at Harvard, she concludes today with an invitation to one of Boston`s most prestigious law firms.