My dad once told me that almost only count in horseshoes, hand grenades, and thermonuclear war. Well, this life lesson was reaffirmed today with my jury trial. Here is the back-story:
Client worked for victim and victim's mother in law for a number of months doing landscaping work. Victim and Victim's mother-in-law let client go because with the coming of fall, the amount of work available was diminishing and it was not financial feasible to keep client on the payroll. However, victim told client "he would do what he could" to help client any kind of work.
Within a week of being let go, client went to victim's home around noon in a green van. Before this day, client had always needed a ride to get to and from work. The victim claims that client broke victim's bedroom window with this bare fist and was entering the victim's residence to steal some of the victim's equipment and valuables. Victim claims that client told him that he tripped on a rock and fell into the window. The only problems with client's story were: 1.) The rock was about 10 feet away from the bedroom window, 2.) The rock was not parallel with the bedroom window and 3.) The bedroom window was at least 5 feet off the ground. In plain English, if the client fell, he was falling upwards.
Now, the good things in client's favor: 1.) The victim's story was not consistent about how far the client was in the window, 2.) There a lot of broken glass in the window and the window frame, 3.) there was only a small injury to client's right forearm and nowhere else, and 4.) The client's fingerprints were not found in the bedroom.
Despite the foibles of your friendly neighborhood public defender, the jury was listening to what he had to say and agreed with his main points. Yet, they found the client guilty because the client's story was improbable, impossible, and just plain laughable and because of this fact, the State's case was strong enough. In other words, kids, the jury thought my client's story was full of shit and was not buying it.
To make matters worse, client had finally told your friendly neighborhood public defender the "truth" which fit the evidence perfectly and would provide a rational explanation for client's actions. Yet, client decided not to testify because he has a prior forgery conviction that would be used against him, and the fact that he lied to the victim, and to the police in telling the "I fell" story.
To be so close to an acquittal, but to lose, really does suck.
Client worked for victim and victim's mother in law for a number of months doing landscaping work. Victim and Victim's mother-in-law let client go because with the coming of fall, the amount of work available was diminishing and it was not financial feasible to keep client on the payroll. However, victim told client "he would do what he could" to help client any kind of work.
Within a week of being let go, client went to victim's home around noon in a green van. Before this day, client had always needed a ride to get to and from work. The victim claims that client broke victim's bedroom window with this bare fist and was entering the victim's residence to steal some of the victim's equipment and valuables. Victim claims that client told him that he tripped on a rock and fell into the window. The only problems with client's story were: 1.) The rock was about 10 feet away from the bedroom window, 2.) The rock was not parallel with the bedroom window and 3.) The bedroom window was at least 5 feet off the ground. In plain English, if the client fell, he was falling upwards.
Now, the good things in client's favor: 1.) The victim's story was not consistent about how far the client was in the window, 2.) There a lot of broken glass in the window and the window frame, 3.) there was only a small injury to client's right forearm and nowhere else, and 4.) The client's fingerprints were not found in the bedroom.
Despite the foibles of your friendly neighborhood public defender, the jury was listening to what he had to say and agreed with his main points. Yet, they found the client guilty because the client's story was improbable, impossible, and just plain laughable and because of this fact, the State's case was strong enough. In other words, kids, the jury thought my client's story was full of shit and was not buying it.
To make matters worse, client had finally told your friendly neighborhood public defender the "truth" which fit the evidence perfectly and would provide a rational explanation for client's actions. Yet, client decided not to testify because he has a prior forgery conviction that would be used against him, and the fact that he lied to the victim, and to the police in telling the "I fell" story.
To be so close to an acquittal, but to lose, really does suck.
i also imagine that made you laugh out loud.