The police station gets a call from Adventure-Tastic about an incident in the ball pit. Again. You still don't know how this place stays in business. You head over immediately to investigate even though you already know what happened.
As soon as you park the police cruiser, you see a stretcher with a body being rolled into an ambulance. It's every bit as bad as you had expected.
You talk to civilian witnesses and all the Adventure-Tastic employees working at the time. You ask them all what happened. Most of them are still in shock and have little to say. The more talkative of the bunch didn't notice anything out of the ordinary.
Adventure-tastic is supposed to be a family-friendly entertainment center and arcade, and it somehow manages to keep that reputation, despite all the people who drown in the ball pits.
[[You see two people arguing and you go over to check it out...]]"You pushed him in, didn't you?"
"Why would I do that?? How do I know //you// didn't push him in, huh?"
The two lads keep arguing like that until you walk over. You ask what's going on. It appears that they're blaming each other for not being able to save their friend. They're sobbing and talking a mile a minute, and it's barely comprehensible, but you start taking notes on the bits and pieces you can understnad. As you parse the details in your head, you're beginning to get a clearer picture of what happened.
A young man named Carlos Rodriguez fell into the ball pit. Or was pushed. No one saw what happened, but he drowned because there's apparently this one spot in the ball pit (called Quicksand Point) that most people know to avoid because it consumes anyone who comes near it.
By now, the lads have calmed down considerably, and they say that they're friends of Mr. Rodriguez. You get their contact information. These two are your prime suspects until you have more information to work with.
Next, you can either take these two [[down to the station]] for more questioning, or you can let them go and [[call them later]].You don't want to choose this option right now. You need //probable cause// to forcibly take someone in for questioning, and at this point in time, there's no reasonable basis to believe that either one committed a crime.
So, it would probably violate their rights to take them in for questioning, though you could kindly request that they come with you to the police station. However, if you take these two very important witnesses into custody, they might stop talking and get attorneys, even if they're innocent and have a lot of helpful information to provide. You decide to call them later. Now, you circle back to the other witnesses who are still milling about the scene, probably dying to go back inside and take their chances with the ball pit of death.
You try to talk to the manager of Adventure-Tastic. However, likely out of fear of a negligence lawsuit, he declines to be questioned. He's usually like that, though. It would be surprising if the victim's family did not pursue a negligence lawsuit, and you wonder why no one has sued Adventure-Tastic yet. Negligence is another prime suspect.
You move on to another employee. This one is far more willing to talk.
The employee: Yeah, the poor guy was Carlos Rodriguez. He comes here a lot. I can't believe he would make the mistake of jumping right into Quicksand Point. Everyone knows it's a death sentence.
You: You said Mr. Rodriguez is a regular?
Them: Yeah.
You: What are the odds it was an accident?
Them: I'd say pretty slim, unless someone accidentally pushed him in.
You: Did you see anyone push him in?
Them: No, but those two friends of his never leave his side. Also, I feel like I should mention that there's this one gal who works here, and she really hates Carlos. She's always watching him, too. Her name's Cynthia Green.
You thank the employee for their help, and [[you wander around looking for Ms. Green]].Luckily, the employees all wear nametags, so you find Ms. Green sitting on the curb, waiting for the commotion to die down so she can get back to work.
You have a brief conversation with her:
You: Did you see anything unusual leading up to the incident?
Her: Nope. I only saw Carlos and his friends messing around near the ball pit. His friends were with him the whole time, so they probably know more than I do.
You: Do you personally know Carlos?
Her: Yeah, he shows up here a lot, and we dated for a bit.
You: Have you been friendly with him since you stopped dating?
Her: Well, we mostly ignore each other.
You: Do you think Carlos' passing could have been an accident?
Her: It probably was. I'd guess one of his dumb friends pushed him in as a joke and wasn't paying attention. Quicksand Point is bigger than most people realize.
You: So you didn't see Carlos fall in?
Her: No.
You: Thank you for your time, Ms. Green. Here's my card in case you have any more information.
You head back to the police station to organize your notes. First thing tomorrow, you'll either [[call Mr. Rodriguez's two friends]], or you'll go back to Adventure-Tastic to [[interview the remaining employees]]. You head over to Adventure-Tastic.
Once again, the manager is as tight-lipped as ever, but he's not the main suspect yet.
All of the other employees are willing to take a break from work and talk for a bit. Here's what you find out:
Multiple employees confirm that Ms. Green was walking away from the scene of the incident. They also agree that Mr. Rodriguez's muffled cries for help could be heard from halfway across the room.
Other employees confirm that Mr. Rodriguez's friends were in the arcade, which is not too far from the ball pit.
There are security cameras inside the building, but the footage for the day in question is missing. Only Ms. Green and the manager have access to the room with the security footage.
Ms. Green is now your main suspect. However, most suspects in a criminal case stop talking and get a lawyer. Yet, she's still awfully talkative, but you're not sure how much you should trust what she says. According to her, she never heard Mr. Rodriguez's muffled cries for help even though everyone else did.
[[Now, you call Mr. Rodriguez's friends]].You call Mr. Rodriguez's friends, and they agree to meet you for coffee. They still seem to be fighting, but it doesn't really seem like either one believes the other is responsible for their friend's death.
You run some more questions by them based on what Ms. Green and the other employee said. They provide you with some more useful information in response:
They confirm that they do playfully push each other sometimes, but never near the ball pit because they all know the dangers. They also confirm that they were around Mr. Rodriguez the whole time, but they weren't keeping a close eye on him. When they heard him calling for help, they rushed over and thought they saw Ms. Green walking away from the ball pit, but they weren't certain. They agreed with the other employee's assessment that Ms. Green is always watching Mr. Rodriguez, and it's really weird. They had a bad breakup, one of them adds, so that could explain it.
[[Now, you head over to Adventure-Tastic to talk to the rest of the employees]], including a second interview with Ms. Green.You head over to Adventure-Tastic.
Once again, the manager is as tight-lipped as ever, but he's not the main suspect yet.
All of the other employees are willing to take a break from work and talk for a bit. Here's what you find out:
Multiple employees confirm that Ms. Green was walking away from the scene of the incident. They also agree that Mr. Rodriguez's muffled cries for help could be heard from halfway across the room.
Other employees confirm that Mr. Rodriguez's friends were in the arcade, which is not too far from the ball pit.
There are security cameras inside the building, but the footage for the day in question is missing. Only Ms. Green and the manager have access to the room with the security footage.
Ms. Green is now your main suspect. However, most suspects in a criminal case stop talking and get a lawyer. Yet, she's still awfully talkative, but you're not sure how much you should trust what she says. According to her, she never heard Mr. Rodriguez's muffled cries for help even though everyone else did.
For your next move, you decide to get a [[warrant]] to search Ms. Green's house and car for the missing footage from Adventure-Tastic.
You call Mr. Rodriguez's friends, and they agree to meet you for coffee. They still seem to be fighting, but it doesn't really seem like either one believes the other is responsible for their friend's death.
You run some more questions by them based on what Ms. Green and the other employee said. They provide you with some more useful information in response:
They confirm that they do playfully push each other sometimes, but never near the ball pit because they all know the dangers. They also confirm that they were around Mr. Rodriguez the whole time, but they weren't keeping a close eye on him. When they heard him calling for help, they rushed over and thought they saw Ms. Green walking away from the ball pit, but they weren't certain. They agreed with the other employee's assessment that Ms. Green is always watching Mr. Rodriguez, and it's really weird. They had a bad breakup, one of them adds, so that could explain it.
For your next move, you decide to get a [[warrant]] to search Ms. Green's house and car for the missing footage from Adventure-Tastic.In order to secure a search warrant, you have to convince a judge that you have //probable cause// that the search will turn up evidence of a crime. In other words, is there a "fair probability" that the search will turn up evidence of a crime?
//Note: The probability generally does not need to be over 50%.//
You write down everything you know so far, whether it's your observations or someone else's statements, then sign the document and pass it along to the judge. This is called an affidavit, and these written statements are under oath.
Here's a summary of why you believe there is //probable cause// to search Ms. Green's house and car for the missing footage:
The security footage is missing for the day in question.
Ms. Green is one of two people with access to the footage, the other being the manager.
According to multiple employees, she tended to stalk Mr. Rodriguez when he spent time at Adventure-Tastic.
They had a bad breakup, and Ms. Green admitted that she and Mr. Rodriguez were not on friendly terms.
Multiple witnesses say she was fleeing the scene while everyone else rushed to the scene to see what was going on.
Mr. Rodriguez's friends and an employee confirm that Mr. Rodriguez is aware of Quicksand Point and knows to avoid it.
As the judge, do you issue the search warrant?
[[Yes]]. Ms. Green is the primary suspect and has unique access to the tapes. Even if the tapes don't incriminate her, they will shed light on what happened, which very well could be an instance of negligence, manslaughter, or murder.
[[No.]] It seems highly unlikely that someone would keep self-incriminating evidence in their possession rather than throw it away at the earliest convenience. The probability of finding the footage is not high enough to justify the violation of privacy.
There is likely not //probable cause// to issue the search warrant. Judges try to balance the right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure with affording the police the discretion necessary to thoroughly investigate potential criminal activity and protect the community. Surprisingly, the judge declines to issue the search warrant. You start to wonder if you'll have enough evidence to make an arrest. //Probable cause// is also the standard for an arrest warrant.
The next day, [[you return to the same judge]] who rejected your search warrant. You present all the same facts to the judge, and you hope that they'll issue the arrest warrant. Does the information gathered thus far suggest a fair probability that Ms. Green was involved in criminal activity?
As the judge, do you issue the arrest warrant?
[[You issue the warrant]]. The testimony of the police officer paired with the testimony of numerous witnesses is compelling. Ms. Green has a motive, the means to hide the evidence, and ample opportunity to commit the crime.
[[You decline to issue the warrant]]. The officer has failed to faithfully explore other possible witnesses. What about these two friends? It's not at all clear where they were during the incident. They spend more time with Mr. Rodriguez than anyone else while Ms. Green is only known to watch from a distance. Also, Ms. Green could have fled the scene to call for help. There's even the possibility that Mr. Rodriguez tripped and fell in, as I've heard happens all too frequently at Adventure-Tastic. As soon as you have the warrant, you go over to Ms. Green's residence and arrest her. You inform her of her Miranda rights (i.e. that she has the right to remain silent and that she has the right to an attorney and to have that attorney present during any and all questioning) and that she is being charged with the murder of Carlos Rodriguez. She goes willingly [[and quite talkatively]], explaining why it couldn't have been her. But she's not telling you anything she hasn't said before.
As a police officer, your work here is just about done, until you eventually get called as a witness in the trial. You fill out some paperwork, and now Ms. Green is sitting in a jail cell for a day or two until her [[arraignment]], which the district attorney will take care of.You now cannot arrest Ms. Green. There is not much more investigative work to be done since you've already asked the witnesses and employees everything you could think of. The case cannot go any further, and the investigation is closed.
However, if the family of Mr. Rodriguez wants to file a lawsuit against Adventure-Tastic, they would probably have //probable cause// to do so. If you have the misfortune of being arrested, don't talk until you have an attorney by your side. It's theoretically possible that you could prove your innocence to a police officer (presuming that you're innocent), but you might just end up getting into more trouble and possibly implicating family and friends. As the DA who will be prosecuting this case, you have received all the relevant information from the investigating officer and the notes from their interviews. The evidence looks pretty solid, but you do wish you could get your hands on those tapes, wherever they might be.
Now, you have to decide what charges to file. This takes place at a legal proceeding called an arraignment.
Which charges are you most interested in filing?
[[First-degree murder]]
[[Second-degree murder]]
[[Third-degree murder]]
[[Voluntary manslaughter]]
[[Involuntary manslaughter]]
[[Negligence]]
//Note: Besides filing the charges and prosecuting the case, the DA can also decide whether or not to try Ms. Green as an adult. In this story, Ms. Green is only 17, but children as young as 13 can be tried as adults in some states (though the minimum age is typically 16). Those subject to adult court might face harsher punishments and end up in adult prison. If a juvenile has a criminal past, appears difficult to rehabilitate, or is being charged with a serious crime, the judge will weigh these factors heavily before transferring them to adult court. In this case, Ms. Green is being tried as an adult.//Any intentional murder that is willful and premeditated with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought refers to the intention to kill.
If someone plans a murder even just a few minutes in advance and takes the time to consider whether or not to act on those plans, and then they do kill someone, then that is first-degree murder.
[[You proceed with four charges...]]Any intentional murder with malice aforethought that is not premeditated. Malice aforethought refers to the intention to kill (or the knowledge that death very well could result from the actions undertaken).
If you get into a fight with someone and end up shooting them, and they die, that would be second-degree murder (unless you could prove that you shot them in self-defense).
[[You proceed with four charges...]]Only three states have statutes for third-degree murder, so this charge will not be filed. The language of third-degree murder statutes is somewhat similar to involuntary manslaughter charges since neither one requires intent.
[[You proceed with four charges...]]Any intentional killing that involves no prior intent to kill, and which was committed under such circumstances that would "cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed." Or, to put it more colloquially, a killing committed "in the heat of passion."
The typical example used is someone killing their partner after finding out that they had been cheated on.
[[You proceed with four charges...]]A killing that stems from a lack of intention to cause death but that involves an intentional or negligent act leading to death.
Drunk-driving is typically considered involuntary manslaughter because the person intended to get in the car and drive (and intended to drink an inordinate amount of alcohol), but they did not intend to kill anyone.
[[You proceed with four charges...]]Prosecutors may initially throw as many charges at the defendant as they want, including any charges more or less severe than what the police officer originally charged the defendant with. The charges change as prosecutors find more evidence and better understand the case, so the prosecution often drops some of the original charges over time, and the judge might dismiss some of them due to lack of evidence.
At the arraignment, you present the charges of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, and voluntary mansalughter. The defendant generally pleads guilty or not guilty on each charge.
If you were Ms. Green, how would you plead?
[[Not guilty on all charges]].
[[Guilty on all charges]].
[[Guilty on some of the charges but not others]].Either you're exceptionally innocent or exceptionally foolish. With these charges, you could be facing multiple life sentences. You should definitely shell out the money for a top-notch attorney.
Now is as good a time as any to discuss [[plea bargaining]].If you plead guilty on all charges, you will likely go to jail for most of the rest of your life. Maybe only 20 years if you're lucky.First-degree murder (i.e. premeditated murder) is exceptionally difficult to prove, and you should, at the very least, not plead guilty to that one. When it comes to setting bail, here are some of the important factors to keep in mind:
-the seriousness of the alleged crime
-age of the defendant
-past criminal record
-strength of communal and familial ties
-the potential risk to public safety
-potential for being a flight risk
As the judge, here are your options:
[[You deny the defendant bail]]. This means they are stuck in jail for the duration of the trial, although this decision could be appealed.
[[You set bail at $500,000]].
[[You set bail at $100,000]].
[[You set bail at $20,000]].
[[You let the defendant back out into the community without bail]].
Ms. Green has enough mitigating factors, so this would be an excessively high bail. She has no criminal record, and it is not evident that she has any behavioral issues or any other issues that would render her dangerous to the community or a flight risk. This would be a reasonable cost for bail. Most people accused of first-degree murder are given a much higher bail, but Ms. Green has no criminal record, and considering that the person she is charged with killing is her ex-boyfriend rather than some random person, there's a decreased likelihood in the eyes of the court that she would kill again if she made bail.
If you're Ms. Green, do you pay bail? You usually only have to pay about 10% of the bail in order to be released from jail, conditional on you attending all of the required court proceedings.
[[Yes, please]]. The novelty of the county jail wears off pretty quickly.
[[No, you've already made friends in the county jail]], so you decide to stay for the duration of the trial. This bail would be too low for someone being charged with first-degree murder.Someone being charged with murdering someone would never be set free without bail. This is not an uncommon decision for those charged with first-degree murder among other charges, but Ms. Green has enough mitigating factors such that she should be provided an opportunity to make bail. You posted bail and can now stay at home for the remainder of the trial (as long as you attend all of the required court proceedings).
Now, on to the [[discovery phase]].Your friends made bail, so they abandon you. You end up all alone in jail for a few months.
Now, on to the [[discovery phase]].Technically, the discovery phase starts as soon as the defense attorney is hired or appointed and usually ends once the trial starts. During this phase, the defense and prosecution must share information about all relevant documents and witnesses with each other and respond to each other's reasonable requests for more information. Failure to do so could result in witnesses and documents being excluded from trial.
As the DA, you've gathered a lot of information. Ever since Ms. Green's arrest, neighbors and members of the community have been calling in offering mostly unhelpful but occasionally valuable information. Here are some of the useful tips you've received:
Adventure-Tastic's only intern called to admit that Ms. Green talked to them about hurting Mr. Rodriguez.
A witness at the scene said that, amidst the aftermath of the incident, Ms. Green was only the person who seemed to be in a good mood.
You were allowed to examine the footage from the two weeks leading up to the incident. Using this footage, you found that Mr. Rodriguez stayed as far away from Quicksand Point as possible when he played in the ball pit. Furthermore, the footage indicates that Ms. Green seems to keep an especially close eye on him, though the tapes never show them talking.
A friend close to Ms. Green tells you that there really wasn't all that much bad blood between Ms. Green and Mr. Rodriguez, and Ms. Green definitely didn't hate him.
Obviously, the last piece of information is not helpful for the prosecution's case, and you definitely won't use it in trial. Do you decide to give this information over to the defense?
No. You're not using it, so [[you don't have to]].
Yes. [[You send the information over to the defense]], even if it hurts your case.
Adventure-Tastic would almost certainly be guilty of negligence, if the Rodriguez family decided to file a lawsuit. Here's a quick overview of the 4 requirements that must be satified for a typical negligence lawsuit:
The defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care: Adventure-Tastic has a duty to ensure that there are no deadly patches of quicksand in its ball pit.
The defendant breached that duty of care: Adventure-Tastic willfully kept the ball pit open despite the repeated incidents that have occurred.
The plaintiff suffered an injury: Carlos Rodriguez died.
The defendant’s breach caused the plaintiff’s injury: If not for the defendant's reckless disregard and inaction, the harm would not have occurred. That satisifies the but-for test of causation. Furthermore, Mr. Rodriguez's injuries were all suffered in the ball pit directly before his death, and the harm suffered was foreseeable, considering this was not the first such incident. Altogether, this satisfies the requirements for causation. You might get into hot water if you try to suppress exculpatory evidence. It's also ethically questionable to withhold evidence that could help to prove someone's innocence.Correct! You are legally required to supply the defense with exculpatory evidence. If you are too generous with the information you provide the defense, though, you'll have trouble securing convictions and favorable plea bargains, and you could lose your position as district attorney. On the other hand, it is relatively easy to hide such evidence, and there is not a robust system in place for holding attorneys accountable when they hide evidence that might exonerate the defendant.
Now, on to the [[preliminary hearing]]. By the start of the preliminary hearing, where the judge determines if there is enough evidence to hold a trial (by using the //probable cause// standard), both the prosecution and defense have usually had a few weeks to develop their arguments through discovery and independent investigation.
Besides the aforementioned witnesses, the DA has a few more tricks up their sleeve that they could use during the preliminary hearing. However, it is often strategic to avoid showing all your cards at once during the preliminary hearing if you know you can easily prove //probable cause//.
As the prosecutor, what do you do?
[[You save most of your witnesses and documents]] for the actual trial. The officers already passed the //probable cause// standard for the search warrant and arrest warrant, so you should be fine.
[[You bring out your best witnesses and arguments]]. Even if you risk giving the defense an advantage by letting them hear your main points, you have to make sure you surpass the //probable cause// standard. This is probably the best option. Very few cases are dismissed as a result of a preliminary hearing. However, the judge does reduce the number of charges being filed after dismissing the charges of first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.
Now, you will be moving forward with two charges:
-Second-degree murder
-Involuntary manslaughter
The next step is [[pre-trial motions]]. You bring out the big guns for the preliminary hearing and easily surpass the //probable cause// standard. The defense takes this opportunity to cross-examine your witnesses. They now know your arguments inside and out. As such, Ms. Green ends up with a much more favorable outcome when all is said and done. At this juncture, either party may ask for the venue to be changed, for one or more charges to be dismissed, or for certain pieces of evidence to be suppressed.
Neither party asks for the venue to be changed. This request is usually only made when either party feels that they cannot receive a fair trial in their county due to unfair/excessive media coverage, a biased political atmosphere, one party's negative local reputation, etc.
Neither party asks for any of the charges to be dismissed. Motions to dismiss are rarely successful anyways.
Neither party asks for any pieces of evidence to be suppressed. This type of motion is usually filed when the defense believes that the prosecution obtained some piece of evidence through an illegal search and seizure.
Without further ado, the trial begins with [[jury selection]].At virtually any point during a case, the prosecution and defense can convene to discuss a plea bargain. Plea bargains are controversial, though. They allow guilty parties to partially shirk responsibility by accepting reduced punishments, and those who are innocent are sometimes pressured into pleading guilty.
On the other hand, they do have benefits for both parties. Each side can save a lot of time and money by not going through with a full trial, and it also ensures that the defendant goes to prison. Over 90% of convictions are secured via plea bargain, and if this were not the case, the courts would likely not have the resources available to see every trial through to the end.
If you were Ms. Green, would you accept a plea deal, if it were offered?
[[Yes, but only if I have a shot at parole]].
[[No, the crime doesn't seem too harsh]]. What's the big deal about life in prison? Can't be worse than AP Calculus, right?
//Note: Prison is generally regarded as less pleasant than AP Calculus.//Well, the Rodriguez family wants justice for their son, so they would never accept anything less than the most severe punishment, which means plea bargaining is off the table.
Since there's no plea deal, let's proceed to the [[next stage of the arraignment]] where the judge sets the bail.That's a good thing, because the Rodriguez family probably wasn't interested in a plea bargain either.
Since there's no plea deal, let's proceed to the [[next stage of the arraignment]] where the judge sets the bail.A panel of potential jurors is convened in front of the judge and both attorneys.
First, the judge will ask the jurors a series of questions to ensure that they are eligible and legally allowed to serve and that jury duty would not cause any of the prospective jurors undue hardship. Most states allow someone to miss jury duty for knee surgery, for instance.
But can someone skip out on jury duty if they would have to drive for two hours just to get to the courthouse?
[[Yes?]]
[[No?]]The answer is actually no. If you live very far away, the government can pay for you to stay in a hotel to save on driving time so that you can still fulfill your civic duty.
Now, onto the actual [[selection process]]:The answer is actually no. If you live very far away, the government can pay for you to stay in a hotel to save on driving time so that you can still fulfill your civic duty.
Now, onto the actual [[selection process]]:It's important to keep in mind that you're not necessarily trying to choose unbiased jurors. You're trying to choose jurors who will be biased in your favor. That's exactly what the opposing counsel is doing, too. If you take the moral high ground and choose impartial witnesses, the defense counsel might just end up walking all over you.
The process for selecting jurors is relatively simple. A panel of prospective jurors is brought in, you and the other attorney argue over whether or not to remove a certain juror from the panel, and then repeat with each prospective juror that one of you takes issue with. There's one caveat, however. Both you and the other attorney have a handful of //peremptory challenges//. These allow you to remove a juror without providing justification. But you can't use these as a pretext for discrimination against any group based on their race, ethnicity, or gender (though it is very difficult to prove unlawful discrimination). Alternatively, discrimination on the basis of age, religion, and political leaning are all legal in jury selection.
So, who might you be able to sneak onto the jury that might vote in your favor? Sports fans? People who seem happier? Or maybe less religious people? It's definitely not easy to a pull a fast one on the opposing counsel except with the (un)lawful use of a peremptory challenge.
So, you're presented with a prospective juror. They've never heard of Adventure-Tastic. This person is about 30 years old and loves pie. They seem pretty chill, and maybe chill people are more likely to turn a blind eye to murder?
[[You use a peremptory challenge]] in order to keep this juror on the jury.
[[You pass]] on the peremptory challenge and wait for someone more favorable.There are no right answers here. Selecting juries is quite the mind game, and it's never clear when you should use up one of your precious peremptory challenges.
Now that the jury selection has wrapped up, we can move on to the [[trial]].There are no right answers here. Selecting juries is quite the mind game, and it's never clear when you should use up one of your precious peremptory challenges.
Now that the jury selection has wrapped up, we can move on to the [[trial]].You step into the court room. The room is half-filled, the hand-picked jurors are in their positions, and the Rodriguez family is seated directly behind you. You also see Ms. Green across the aisle.
The judge slams the gavel, and the trial starts. Aside from the opening and closing statements you can make objections on the grounds of [[hearsay]], [[unfair prejudice]], [[speculation]], and [[improper expert opinion]], to name a few.
The prosecution makes their opening statement. The defense responds with theirs.
Now, each side calls their witnesses to bolster the arguments laid out in the opening statements.
[[The prosecution calls their first witness...]]Hearsay is an out-of-court statement used to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. Hearsay is not admissible evidence in a trial. There are many exceptions to the rule, but a witness cannot testify something like "Mr. Jenkins told me that Ms. Green hates Mr. Rodriguez." If this is true, it has to be proven using evidence that does not amount to hearsay. Evidence that is substantially more prejudicial than probative is not admissible in a trial, even if the evidence does have some probative value. For instance, if Ms. Green were poor, that could feasibly explain why she might act out and push someone into Quicksand Point, but the value of that testimony might be substantially outweighed by the extent to which it would unfairly prejudice the jury against Ms. Green. Witnesses cannot testify to any matter outside the scope of their personal knowledge. This means that a witness can testify saying that, "Ms. Green looked mad," but they cannot testify that "Ms. Green //was// mad." Regarding the latter statement, the witness can't actually know Ms. Green's mental or emotional state, but they might have personal knowledge of how Ms. Green looked, which is why the former, but not the latter, is admissible.In trials, experts must have the qualifications to be formally deemed experts in a certain field. This means that one of Mr. Rodriguez's friends cannot testify that Mr. Rodriguez died of "ball pit fever" since his friend knows nothing about the medical field and thus cannot speak to Mr. Rodriguez's cause of death.The unpaid intern from Adventure-Tastic takes the stand. After a few minutes of questioning, here's the information you got out of them:
Ms. Green was vocal in her dislike of Mr. Rodriguez. Rarely a day went by where she did not say something disparaging about her ex-boyfriend. The intern can't speculate as to whether she really wanted to hurt him, but the day before the incident, they recall Ms. Green saying, "Would anyone miss him if he were dead?"
The defense objected to this statement on the grounds of [[hearsay]].
This evidence is crucial to the prosecution's case, but is it admissible?
[[Probably?]]
[[Probably not?]]Here's the quote: "Would anyone miss him if he were dead?"
A statement is hearsay if it refers to a statement that was made out of court and is being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.
Most questions are not hearsay because, usually, questions don't assert truths. But sometimes they can.
Was this question asserting that no one would actually miss Mr. Rodriguez if he were dead? Was Ms. Green asserting that she wanted to kill Mr. Rodriguez?
If it were asserting either of those things, it would be hearsay and thus inadmissible.
In the end, the judge overruled the objection and decided that this statement is admissible.
[[The prosecution calls their next witness...]]Here's the quote: "Would anyone miss him if he were dead?"
A statement is hearsay if it refers to a statement that was made out of court and is being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.
Most questions are not hearsay because, usually, questions don't assert truths. But sometimes they can.
Was this question asserting that no one would actually miss Mr. Rodriguez if he were dead? Was Ms. Green asserting that she wanted to kill Mr. Rodriguez?
If it were asserting either of those things, it would be hearsay and thus inadmissible.
In the end, the judge overruled the objection and decided that this statement was admissible.
[[The prosecution calls their next witness...]]A witness from the scene of the crime takes the stand. After a few minutes of questioning, here's the information you got out of them:
This witness said some people at the scene were freaking out, Mr. Rodriguez's friends were having a heated argument, and some people were crying. But this witness noted that, amidst the aftermath of the incident, "Ms. Green was the only person who seemed to be in a good mood."
The defense objected to this statement on the grounds of [[speculation]].
This evidence is crucial to the prosecution's case, but is it admissible?
[[Uh, probably?]]
[[Hmmm, probably not?]]The witness said, "Ms. Green was the only person who seemed to be in a good mood."
Witnesses cannot testify to any matter outside the scope of their personal knowledge. The witness' personal knowledge, in this situation, can only encompass indicators of a "good mood" that the witness either saw or heard.
There was a lot of commotion, and it seems hard to believe that this witness was able to process information about the mood of every single person present and then determine that Ms. Green was the only person who looked to be in a good mood.
In the end, the judge sustained the objection and decided that this statement was speculative and was therefore not admissible. It was then stricken from the record, and the jury was instructed not to consider this statement in their deliberations.
Then, the defense's witnesses take the stand, followed by closing statements from each counsel.
[[Here are the most important facts that came to light during the trial...]]The witness said, "Ms. Green was the only person who seemed to be in a good mood."
Witnesses cannot testify to any matter outside the scope of their personal knowledge. The witness' personal knowledge, in this situation, can only encompass indicators of a "good mood" that the witness either saw or heard.
There was a lot of commotion, and it seems hard to believe that this witness was able to process information about the mood of every single person present and then determine that Ms. Green was the only person who looked to be in a good mood.
In the end, the judge sustained the objection and decided that this statement was speculative and was therefore not admissible. It was then stricken from the record, and the jury was instructed not to consider this statement in their deliberations.
Then, the defense's witnesses take the stand, followed by closing statements from each counsel.
[[Here are the most important facts that came to light during the trial...]]Adventure-Tastic's intern indicated that Ms. Green asked if anyone would miss Mr. Rodriguez if he died.
A witness said that Ms. Green was the only person who seemed to be in a good mood after the incident. This testimony was suppressed, so they rephrased and said that Ms. Green looked to be pretty happy in the aftermath following the incident.
Using footage from the weeks leading up to the day in question (footage that was made available to both parties), it was revealed that Mr. Rodriguez often stayed as far away from Quicksand Point as possible when he played in the ball pit. Also, Ms. Green seems to keep an especially close eye on him. In fact, she appears to stare at him for up to 10 minutes at a time.
One thing that you only recently noticed from the footage is that, contrary to what they previously told the investigating officer, the two friends of Mr. Rodriguez have pushed him into the ball pit on at least two occasions.
The two friends were grilled on this point by the defense counsel. They clarified that they only engaged in horseplay with Mr. Rodriguez when they were closer to the safe side of the ball pit. The available footage supports this claim.
Even so, the defense repeatedly pointed to the two friends of Mr. Rodriguez who many witnesses said spent the most time around Mr. Rodriguez. "What's more likely?" the defense attorney asked the jury. "Some friends were messing around, and then Mr. Rodriguez gets pushed in? Or the prosecution's story about a murderous ex-girlfriend?"
Multiple customers and employees said that, before the incident occurred, they heard Mr. Rodriguez's friends talking in the arcade. The arcade is at least 20 feet away from the ball pit, confirmed the manager.
Only Ms. Green and the manager have access to the tapes, and the manager confirmed that this is the first time any footage has gone missing.
The defense points out that it could have been the manager stealing the footage to prevent bad publicity and a lawsuit.
A friend of Ms. Green's testifies that Ms. Green and Mr. Rodriguez act civilly towards each other. This friend has never heard Ms. Green disparage Mr. Rodriguez. This testimony is contradicted by multiple employees who claimed that Ms. Green regularly speaks ill of Mr. Rodriguez.
Ms. Green admitted that she knows exactly where Quicksand Point is within the ball pit. She also said that people do sometimes fall in or get pushed into the ball pit on accident. Other employees corroborated this testimony.
Despite the many witnesses who work at Adventure-Tastic, no one saw anything out of the ordinary leading up to the incident. None of the employees are particularly close with Ms. Green, so there is no evidence of a motive to lie on her behalf.
Ms. Green acknowledged that she quickly walked away from the scene to call for help. No one testified that they saw her making any calls. Some employees think she could have been walking in the direction of the security room, but there are other rooms in that direction, too.
The manager testified that all customers are given extra-grip socks to avoid incidents of slipping near the ball pit and other play areas. Mr. Rodriguez's friends confirm that they all wear these socks.
[[Now, it's time for the verdict...]]
The jury has carefully weighed all of the evidence for the following two charges brought against Ms. Green:
[[Second-degree murder]]
[[Involuntary manslaughter]]
How does the jury vote?
[[Guilty of both charges]]
[[Guilty of second-degree murder]] but not involuntary manslaughter
[[Guilty of involuntary manslaughter]] but not second-degree murder
[[Not guilty of both charges]]Depending on the state, this could carry a maximum sentence of life in prison. Alternatively, the average sentence would be 20 years in prison with no chance of parole. If there are mitigating factors, such as the defendant's lack of a prior criminal record, the defendant could be given a more favorable sentence.
The state you're in matters too because some are less harsh than others. In some states, the minimum punishment for involuntary manslaughter hovers around 12 months. The minimum punishment for second-degree murder in more lenient states typically hovers around 10 years with a chance for parole or early release on good behavior.
The defense can always appeal the verdict or sentencing, but the vast majority of appeals are unsuccessful. Depending on the state, this would carry a maximum sentence of life in prison. Alternatively, this could mean about 20 years in prison with no chance of parole. If there are mitigating factors, such as the defendant's lack of a prior criminal record, the defendant could be given a lesser sentence.
The Rodriguez family could appeal the verdict in order to convict on involuntary manslaughter, but appeals are usually unsuccessful. They will likely be happy with this verdict.
Now that the trial is mostly wrapped up, it's time for [[post-trial motions]].In some states, the minimum punishment for involuntary manslaughter hovers around 12 months. It will usually not exceed 5 years.
If the Rodriguez family wants to appeal in order to secure a harsher punishment, they can do so, but appeals are rarely successful. Reversing the "not guilty" verdict for second-degree murder would be very difficult, and making the case that the judge should have given less weight to certain mitigating factors is a stronger argument but still not one that holds up well in appellate court.
Upwards of 90% of the applications for appeal are either rejected outright or the decisions are upheld when the courts actually take a look at the case. Ms. Green walks free! The Rodriguez family spends the rest of their life wondering what really happened to their son.
They could appeal the decision, but appeals only have around a 10%-20% success rate. More often than not, the appeal is either rejected or the lower court's decision is confirmed. During sentencing, each party will have the opportunity to make their case in favor of a harsher or lighter sentence.
//Note: Regardless of what arguments the judge hears in favor of one side or the other, they are supposed to abide by //stare decisis//, the doctrine of precedent. In other words, judges are supposed to hand down a punishment about as severe as the punishments handed down in similar cases in their jurisdiction.//
The prosecution highlights Ms. Green's aggravating factors. She refused to take responsibility for her actions or show any remorse, and she tried to hide the evidence of her wrongdoing.
However, the defense counsel points out that Ms. Green is young and immature, has no history of drug abuse or violence, and is in an excellent position to learn from her mistakes. It would not be right to put her in jail for life. Every teenager deserves a second chance.
As the judge, what sentence do you hand down?
[[5 years in prison with eligibility for parole after 2 years]]
[[10 years in prison with eligibility for parole after 5 years]]
[[Life in prison without parole]]Post-trial motions serve as the final stage of the trial. During this stage, either party may motion for a new trial, motion for a judgment of acquittal (i.e. a request for the judge to disregard the verdict and allow the defendant to go free), or motion to correct an illegal sentence (such as when the judge sentences the defendant to more prison time than is allowed by law for a certain offense).
Generally, nothing of substance takes place during post-trial motions, though sometimes miscalculations are made in sentencing. In that case, either party can file a motion to correct an illegal sentence, and the motion is usually granted.
Next up: [[Sentencing]]This sentence would be too light for second-degree murder. In fact, the prosecution would likely file a motion to correct an illegal sentence since 5 years in prison is below the legally-mandated minimum sentence in most states. Considering Ms. Green's mitigating factors, such as her age and lack of prior criminal record, this is probably a fair sentence.
If this seems harsh for a 17-year-old, keep in mind that most convicted criminals only serve about half their sentence in prison. Ms. Green is up for parole after 5 years, and there's an excellent chance she'll be released early.
[[5 years later...]]Considering Ms. Green's mitigating factors, the most important one being that she is a first-time offender who committed a murder that was not of a particularly violent nature, life in prison without parole would be excessive.
The judge has a good-faith basis to believe that Ms. Green can be reformed and can eventually return to free society as a better person. I hope you enjoyed the story!
As a disclaimer, this is neither a defense nor an indictment of our criminal justice system. If there's any lesson to be learned from this fictional tale, it's that the criminal justice system is complicated and, more importantly, very subjective. Attorneys, judges, and jurors are given broad discretion when it comes to interpreting standards like //beyond a reasonable doubt//. Accordingly, it's easy to imagine the abundance of reasonable disagreements that could arise from such subjective terminology.
As a wise man once said, "If shared ignorance in the face of immense complexity cannot unite us, then all is lost."Ms. Green sits in front of the parole board, pleading her case for why she should be released on parole:
While in prison, she completed her GED and earned an online college degree. The parole board thus has a good-faith basis to believe that she can seamlessly transition back to free society and soon find gainful employment and a place to live.
After a few minor incidents in her first few weeks in prison, she has adjusted well and has not had any problems since.
She dutifully attended every meeting and rehabilitative program that was required of her.
She expressed remorse for her actions and asked for a second chance to become a well-adjusted, contributing member of society.
Should the parole board release Ms. Green?
[[Yes, she checks all the boxes]].
[[No, she didn't go above and beyond]] the requirements to merit an early release.While in prison, Ms. Green completed her GED and earned an online college degree. The parole board considers this to be one of the most important factors since finding gainful employment is often a solid predictor of low-recidivism.
Her behavior has also been exemplary, and she expressed remorse and took responsibility for her actions.
This encompasses most of what the parole board is looking for when considering an early release.
After 5 long years, Ms. Green now has the second chance she deserves.
//Fin.//
[[Click here to learn a little more about the vision behind this project]].While in prison, Ms. Green completed her GED and earned an online college degree. The parole board considers this to be one of the most important factors since finding gainful employment is often a solid predictor of low-recidivism.
Her behavior has also been exemplary, and she expressed remorse and took responsibility for her actions.
This encompasses most of what the parole board is looking for when considering an early release.
After 5 long years, Ms. Green now has the second chance she deserves.
//Fin.//
[[Click here to learn a little more about the vision behind this project]].
<script>
function EmbedTwineUpdateHeight(){
var passage = document.getElementsByTagName("tw-passage")[0];
if (passage === undefined){//SugarCube
passage = document.getElementById("passages");
}
var newHeight = passage.offsetHeight;
if(newHeight<500){newHeight=500;}
window.parent.postMessage(["setHeight", newHeight], "*");
console.log(newHeight);
}
setTimeout(EmbedTwineUpdateHeight, 50);
</script>