Jury deliberations were expected to begin today at the end of closing arguments, but the closing arguments haven't ended. See Jury Deliberations.
In a criminal trial, the prosecution makes its initial closing argument, then the defense makes its closing argument, and then the prosecution gets the last word. That "last word" took more time than the judge anticipated, a fact he pointed out when commenting on his expectation to "send the trial to the jury" today.
At 6:20 p.m. tonight, the judge polled the jury, not for their verdict in Mr. Jensen's trial, but rather for the time that they wanted to start the trial tomorrow - they voted for 8:30 AM - and then he recessed the trial and emphasized his intent to "charge the jury" tomorrow and refrain from holding the jurors any longer than necessary. The defense agreed, and added that they were also interested in not having Mr. Jensen's life unnecessarily put on hold any longer.
A pool of 19 jurors were selected for the Jensen trial. Twelve jurors for the jury, and 7 additional jurors (called alternates) if needed. Alternate jurors are selected for very serious felony trials to prevent a mistrial in case one or more jurors is unable to serve.
The court ordered the defense and prosecuting attorneys to report at 8:15 a.m. tomorrow morning to answer the question, "How many jurors should be dismissed before deliberations begin?" The court posed that question to the attorneys yesterday, with the anticipation that the court would dismiss those alternates today.
So, why are closing arguments taking so long? The prosecuting attorney is giving his rebuttals to the defense's closing arguments, and to that end has prepared a list of the testimony and evidence in the state's case. For each item on the list, he is summarizing the state's case, as well as hypothesizing other possible reasons for past activities and evidence in the trial, a summation technique that met with a few objections from the defense and a motion for a mistrial.
The court denied the defense's motion for a mistrial.
The court indicated that the prosecuting attorney is expected to be done with his closing arguments by noon tomorrow, with deliberations beginning as soon as the jury instructions are done.
Showing posts with label Closing Arguments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Closing Arguments. Show all posts
Monday, February 18, 2008
Friday, September 7, 2007
Charges: Multiple Counts, Sexual Assault of A Child; Verdict: Not Guilty
Lesson: Less Is More - The 60-second Close
Wise old judges really are sometimes both. A few years back, a wise old judge name “Wright” told me and the prosecutor, just before closings in a homicide trial, that shorter was better and that no closing was the best idea of all. He claimed that jury studies showed that closings never win trials but sometimes lose them. Neither of us took the bait. So I argued in closing for 30 minutes in between the prosecutor’s 95 minute, 2-part stem-winder. (The shorter closing was the winning closing that day, thankfully.)
This week I took the wise old judge's advice in a felony sexual assault trial involving two stepdaughters that each accused my client of years of assaults. I sensed the prosecutor might hold back arguments for rebuttal. But she nonetheless argued well for 45 minutes in her initial closing argument. The jury struggled to pay attention, as they usually do at that point in a trial.
So, after getting my testifying client's approval, I gave a 60-second closing argument. I said simply that the only way to prove you did not do this was to testify, that my client did so, and that I could add nothing to that. I told them of the jury studies' conclusions, as well. I closed with a stern, whispered caution that before they marked my client as a child molester for life, they better be damn sure they were right. And then I sat down.
The jury studies may be right. The jury acquitted on both counts despite my “concession” of closing arguments to the prosecutor.
Simple lesson? Trials are won in jury selection and openings – and sometimes even on the evidence, but not in closing arguments. The latter are mere fodder for TV and press. (Maybe, though, it helps to tell the jury why you are not saying much; and always clear this unusual approach with the client... CYA is good.)
The problem most lawyers have is they fear that being so brief or risky is also setting up a claim of ineffective assistance. That fear is palpable and usually overwhelms logic and science. In this case, I fought with myself for two full days before I convinced myself to say little in closing. It helped that jury selection had gone very well, and openings seemed to be in our favor. But I ultimately did what my instinct said to do, which seems obvious in hindsight; but leaving well enough alone is difficult. (It helped that I had laryngitis, which I noted to the jury at the beginning of my 60-second non-argument to evoke laughter from the jury after a persuasive initial closing argument for conviction. A laughing jury is not usually a hanging jury – at least, not in these parts. I started by telling the jurors that I had good news. I paused for effect. Then I said “I have laryngitis.” The laughter helped make them forget any anger they felt for my client, I suspect.)
Next case.
CVW
Helpful Information:
First degree sexual assault of a child, Wisconsin Statute Stat 948.02(1))
Class B felony
Attorney Chris Van Wagner
Wise old judges really are sometimes both. A few years back, a wise old judge name “Wright” told me and the prosecutor, just before closings in a homicide trial, that shorter was better and that no closing was the best idea of all. He claimed that jury studies showed that closings never win trials but sometimes lose them. Neither of us took the bait. So I argued in closing for 30 minutes in between the prosecutor’s 95 minute, 2-part stem-winder. (The shorter closing was the winning closing that day, thankfully.)
This week I took the wise old judge's advice in a felony sexual assault trial involving two stepdaughters that each accused my client of years of assaults. I sensed the prosecutor might hold back arguments for rebuttal. But she nonetheless argued well for 45 minutes in her initial closing argument. The jury struggled to pay attention, as they usually do at that point in a trial.
So, after getting my testifying client's approval, I gave a 60-second closing argument. I said simply that the only way to prove you did not do this was to testify, that my client did so, and that I could add nothing to that. I told them of the jury studies' conclusions, as well. I closed with a stern, whispered caution that before they marked my client as a child molester for life, they better be damn sure they were right. And then I sat down.
The jury studies may be right. The jury acquitted on both counts despite my “concession” of closing arguments to the prosecutor.
Simple lesson? Trials are won in jury selection and openings – and sometimes even on the evidence, but not in closing arguments. The latter are mere fodder for TV and press. (Maybe, though, it helps to tell the jury why you are not saying much; and always clear this unusual approach with the client... CYA is good.)
The problem most lawyers have is they fear that being so brief or risky is also setting up a claim of ineffective assistance. That fear is palpable and usually overwhelms logic and science. In this case, I fought with myself for two full days before I convinced myself to say little in closing. It helped that jury selection had gone very well, and openings seemed to be in our favor. But I ultimately did what my instinct said to do, which seems obvious in hindsight; but leaving well enough alone is difficult. (It helped that I had laryngitis, which I noted to the jury at the beginning of my 60-second non-argument to evoke laughter from the jury after a persuasive initial closing argument for conviction. A laughing jury is not usually a hanging jury – at least, not in these parts. I started by telling the jurors that I had good news. I paused for effect. Then I said “I have laryngitis.” The laughter helped make them forget any anger they felt for my client, I suspect.)
Next case.
CVW
Helpful Information:
First degree sexual assault of a child, Wisconsin Statute Stat 948.02(1))
Class B felony
Attorney Chris Van Wagner
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)