COMMONWEALTH vs. JIMEL LAWSON COMMONWEALTH vs. JEHMAR GLADDEN COMMONWEALTH vs. TERRENCE LEWIS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL TRIALS DIVISION ----- OCTOBER TERM, 1 BILL NO. 1 1/ : NO, 1 MURDER NO, ROBBERY NO, CARR FIREARMS W/0 LIC. NO, - CARR FIREARMS PUB ST/Pl NO. - THEFT UNL TAK/DISP. NO. THEFT REC STOL PROPERT~ NO. POSS INSTRU CRIME. NO. B - CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY. ----- OCTOBER TERM, 1 BILL NO. 1 / NO. 1 - MURDER NO. ROBBERY NO. - CARR FIREARMS W/0 LIC NO. - CARR FIREARMS PUB ST/Pl NO. - THEFT UNL TAK/DISP NO. - THEFT REC STOL PROPERT1 NO. - POSS INSTRU CRIME NO. B - CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY ----- JANUARY TERM, BILL NO. 0 NO. 1 - MURDER NO. - ROBBERY NO. CARR FIREARMS W/0 LIC NO. - CARR FIREARMS PUB ST/Pl NO. THEFT UNL TAK/DISP NO. - THEFT REC STOL PROPERT1 NO. POSS INSTRU CRIME NO. - CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY JURY TRIAL MAY, 1 COURTROOM 01, CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA BEFORE: THE HONORABLE JAMES A. LINEBERGER, J. AND A JURY
APPEARANCES: JOHN DOYLE, ESQ, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE COMMONWEALTH DONALD M, PADOVA, ESQ, FOR DEFENDANT JIMEL LAWSON NINO V. TINARI, ESQ. FOR DEFENDANT JEHMAR GLADDEN THOMAS W, MOORE, JR., ESQ. FOR DEFENDANT TERRENCE LEWIS
THE COURT: ANY POINTS FOR CHARGE? {DISCUSSION IN ROBING ROOM AS FOLLOWS:) MR, DOYLE: JUDGE, I DID SUBMIT, AND ALL COUNSEL HAVE IT -- THE COURT: COMMONWEALTH IS SUGGESTING THAT I REMIND THE JURY THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE HEARD EVIDENCE THAT THE DEFENDANT MAY HAVE BELIEVED THAT THE DECEDENT OWED THEM MONEY, A PERSON HAS NO LEGAL RIGHT TO RESORT TO FORCE OR VIOLENCE TO COLLECT A DEBT. SUCH A BELIEF IN A CLAIM OF RIGHT TO THE MONEY IS NO DEFENSE TO 1 ROBBERY OR MURDER. COMMONWEALTH VERSUS 1 SLEIGTHER, CITED AT AD,, PENNSYLVANIA 1 CASE. ALL OF YOU OR ANYONE HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THIS BEING PRESENTED? MR. TINARI: ON BEHALF MY CLIENT, YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT. THERE'S NO NEED FOR THIS PARTICULAR INSTRUCTION. THERE ISN'T ANY THERE ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL THAT ONE CAN
ASCERTAIN FROM EITHER THE COMMONWEALTH OR DEFENSE'S QUESTIONS THAT THEY WERE THERE TO COLLECT A DEBT, AND I THINK WE'RE JUST INJECTING INTO THE RECORD SOMETHING THAT ISN'T THERE, MR, MOORE: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT, ALSO. MR. PADOVA: I OBJECT, SAME REASONS MR. TINARI STATED. NOTHING THERE TO -- THERE WAS NO TESTIMONY THAT THIS IS ANYBODY'S DEFENSE. PRESENTED. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. IT WILL NOT BE MR. DOYLE, THERE'S NOTHING TO PRECLUDE YOU FROM ARGUING YOUR THEORY OF THE CASE. CAN ARGUE WHATEVER YOU WANT TO AS A THEORY, YOU 1 SINCE YOU REALLY HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO PROVE A MOTIVE. BUT YOU CAN ARGUE WHATEVER YOU WANT, 1 WHAT INFERENCES MAY BE DRAWN FROM THE EVIDENCE. YOU CAN APPRECIATE THE FACT YOU CAN DO THAT. MR. PADOVA: ONLY OTHER POINT I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON NOW AT THIS POINT IS THAT THERE IS TESTIMONY THAT AT LEAST MY CLIENT WAS INVOLVED IN SOME OTHER DRUG SALES -- I'D ASK THE COURT TO INSTRUCT THE
JURY -- AS A POSSIBLE MOTIVE OR BASIS FOR IDENTIFICATION, THE LAW CLERK: IT'S IN THERE. 1 MR, TINARI: THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE, AND I'M JUST SUGGESTING, BECAUSE THIS SOMEHOW SPEAKS TO IDENTIFICATION, THERE WAS SOME CROSS-EXAMINATION, IDENTIFICATION, THAT PERHAPS THE COURT WOULD BE OF A MIND TO GIVE A KLOIBER INSTRUCTION, THAT THE TESTIMONY OF AN EYEWITNESS MUST BE SCRUTINIZED IN THE EVENT THAT THERE HAS BEEN ANY TESTIMONY THAT SUGGESTED EITHER A PRIOR MISIDENTIFICATION, OR AN IDENTIFICATION IS OMITTED, OR AN IDENTIFICATION IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT IS REPORTED AS BEING ANY OF THE DEFENDANTS' DESCRIPTIONS. THE COURT: I'LL GIVE THAT. 1 MR. DOYLE: NOTE THE COMMONWEALTH'S OBJECTION. THE COURT: WHY? NUMBER ONE, THE SECOND PART OF IT -- IS A TWO-PRONG TEST, AND ONE OF THEM IS YOU CAN TAKE IT AS A FACT IF YOU HAVE ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU SAY SHE HAD. SO I WOULD THINK THAT IT WOULD BE EVEN BETTER FOR
THE COMMONWEALTH. MR. TINARI: COMMONWEALTH... WELL, IF IT'S BETTER FOR THE MR. DOYLE: COUPLE OF POINTS WHICH ARE ROUTINE. YOU WILL, OF COURSE, GIVE EXPERT WITNESS, ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY, CO-CONSPIRATOR LIABILITY, YOUR PRACTICE, I RECALL, WHEN YOU DEFINE THE DEGREES OF MURDER, YOU SAY THAT THE DEFENDANT OR HIS ACCOMPLICE OR CO-CONSPIRATOR KILLED, I WOULD JUST ASK YOU TO CONTINUE YOUR NORMAL PRACTICE. PRACTICE. MR, MOORE: I BELIEVE THAT IS YOUR NORMAL YOU'RE GOING TO CHARGE THEM 1 1 ON SPECIFIC INTENT, AND THEY MUST PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THE CO-DEFENDANT SHARED THE SPECIFIC INTENT. THE COURT: OH, YES. ABSOLUTELY. ONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER, MUST HAVE SHARED THE SPECIFIC INTENT TO KILL IN ORDER TO BE GUILTY. THE COURT: OBVIOUSLY ONE WHO WALKS IN WITH A SAWED-OFF SHOTGUN IS A BACKUP, MR. TINARI: WHAT CAME TO MY MIND'S EYE, BECAUSE OF THE TESTIMONY THAT WAS ELICITED,
WORDS TO THE EFFECT, HE'S A DICKHEAD. I THINK THE COURT MAY BE ABLE TO GIVE AN INSTRUCTION TO ABANDONEDMENT AND WITHDRAWAL FROM THE CONSPIRACY, THE COURT: BUT THAT WAS AFTER THE FACT. STEPS HAD BEEN TAKEN BEFORE, UTTERED FRUSTRATION, THAT WAS AN MR. DOYLE: WE CAN GO OFF THE RECORD. (DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD.) MR, DOYLE: JUDGE, I WOULD MAKE AN ORAL MOTION -- THIS ONLY APPLIES TO PENALTY -- IF MR, TINARI REFERS TO THE,000 PEOPLE AND THE 1 MAN FROM NAZARETH, THAT'S INADMISSIBLE REFERENCE BY THE COMMONWEALTH OR DEFENSE IN ANY PHASE OF THE TRIAL. 1 MR, TINARI: I WILL NOT REFER TO ANYBODY FROM NAZARETH, I DON'T KNOW IF I WILL GET INTO THAT, I WILL NOT INVOKE THE DEITY, THE BIBLE, THE COURT: NOTHING FOR THIS COURT TO SAY OR DO WITH REGARD TO YOUR REQUEST AT THIS POINT,
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD.) THE COURT: BRING IN THE JURY, MR. FULLER. LET'S GET THIS SHOW ON THE ROAD, (THE JURY ENTERED THE COURTROOM,) YOUR HONOR, THE TIPSTAFF: THE JURY'S IN PLACE, THE COURT: GENTLEMEN. THE JURY: THE COURT: GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GOOD MORNING. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, NOW 1 THAT ALL THE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED IN THE CASE AND COUNSEL FOR BOTH SIDES HAVE RESTED, THE NEXT STEP IN THE CASE IS FOR COUNSEL TO 1 GIVE YOU THEIR CLOSING ARGUMENTS. DURING COUNSELS' CLOSING ARGUMENTS THEY WILL INVITE YOUR ATTENTION TO CERTAIN EVIDENCE OR THE LACK THEREOF AND ASK THAT YOU DRAW CERTAIN INFERENCES FROM THIS EVIDENCE OR THE LACK OF EVIDENCE, I REMIND YOU THAT IT'S YOUR COLLECTIVE RECOLLECTION OF THE EVIDENCE THAT'S
CONTROLLING, NOT COUNSEL'S, NOR THIS COURT'S. COUNSEL MAY AT THE SAME TIME INVITE YOUR ATTENTION TO CERTAIN BASIC PRINCIPLES OF LAW. I REMIND YOU, HOWEVER, THAT I WILL GIVE YOU THE LAW THAT YOU MUST FOLLOW IN RENDERING A DECISION IN THIS CASE. I ASK YOU, HOWEVER, TO 1 1 LISTEN CAREFULLY TO THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL AND IF, IN FACT, THE EVIDENCE CITED BY COUNSEL IS SUPPORTED BY YOUR RECOLLECTION OF THE EVIDENCE, THEN NATURALLY YOU MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER IT IN YOUR DELIBERATIONS. THE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE INDICATE AND DICTATE THAT COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT CLOSES FIRST, FOLLOWED THEN BY THE CLOSING ARGUMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY, IN THIS CASE, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, FOLLOWING THE CLOSING ARGUMENTS THIS COURT WILL THEN GIVE YOU YOUR INSTRUCTIONS ON THE LAW. THEN AND ONLY THEN WILL YOU BE IN A POSITION TO DETERMINE WHAT THE TRUE FACTS ARE AND THE TRUTH IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. SO I SUGGEST TO YOU THAT YOU PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. DEFENSE. MR. PADOVA, YOU MAY
START. MR, PADOVA: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, COUNSEL, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY, GOOD MORNING. THE JURY: MR. PADOVA: GOOD MORNING. FIRST OF ALL I'D LIKE TO THANK EVERYONE FOR BEARING WITH US OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS, IN TERMS OF WITNESSES, I GUESS IT WASN'T THAT LONG OF A CASE. AGAIN, I'M SURE THAT EVERYONE APPRECIATES YOUR FORBEARANCE IN SERVING ON THIS CASE. BEFORE I TALK ABOUT THE CASE ITSELF I WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOME THINGS INITIALLY. FIRST, THE COURT INSTRUCTED YOU, WHAT WE LAWYERS SAY IS NOT EVIDENCE. IT'S YOUR 1 RECOLLECTION OF WHAT THE EVIDENCE WAS OR WASN'T THAT CONTROLS EVERYTHING HERE. YOU'LL SEE I 1 MADE MYSELF SOME NOTES THAT I MAY REFER TO AS I TALK WITH YOU. AGAIN, THESE NOTES ARE NOT EVIDENCE. IT'S JUST MY RECOLLECTION, WHICH YOU'VE ALREADY BEEN INSTRUCTED DOESN'T REALLY MATTER. IT'S HOW YOU RECOLLECT THINGS. I TOLD YOU AT THE OUTSET A COUPLE OF THINGS, INITIALLY I TOLD YOU THAT UNDER THE
SYSTEM OF LAW THAT WE OPERATE UNDER, THAT PEOPLE HAVE CERTAIN FUNCTIONS, CERTAIN DUTIES, CERTAIN RESPONSIBILITIES. AT THIS POINT YOU KNOW THAT THE JUDGE IS CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF DECIDING THE LAW, GIVING YOU WHAT THE LAW IS. THE ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY IS CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY AND THE DUTY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE TO YOU, DEFENSE COUNSEL'S CHARGED WITH THE THE RESPONSIBILITY, THE DUTY TO ASK QUESTIONS, TO TEST THE ALLEGATIONS THAT ARE BROUGHT AGAINST CITIZENS BY THE COMMONWEALTH. AND YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, HAVE CERTAIN DUTIES, ALSO. YOU 1 HAVE TO DECIDE, AMONG YOUR DUTIES, WHETHER OR NOT THE COMMONWEALTH HAS PROVEN THE CHARGES THAT IT HAS MADE AGAINST A CITIZEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, THAT IS YOUR DUTY AND THAT'S 1 YOUR RESPONSIBILITY PURSUANT TO THE OATH THAT YOU TOOK. THERE'S TWO THINGS I WANT TO REMIND YOU OF THAT ARE PART OF THOSE DUTIES THAT YOU TOOK UPON YOURSELVES WHEN YOU SWORE THE OATH AT THE OUTSET, AT LEAST TWO OF THOSE RESPONSIBILITIES IS YOUR SWEARING UNDER OATH,
OR AFFIRMING THAT YOU WILL FOLLOW CERTAIN PRECEPTS OF THE LAW THAT THE JUDGE HAS INSTRUCTED YOU ON. TWO OF THOSE ARE THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND THAT YOU WILL HOLD THE COMMONWEALTH TO ITS DUTY OF PROVING THE DEFENDANT GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. AS TO PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, EVEN AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME MY CLIENT IS PRESUMED TO BE INNOCENT. THE ONLY TIME THAT MY CLIENT IS TO BE CONSIDERED GUILTY IS WHEN OR IF ALL OF YOU PEOPLE WHO ARE DELIBERATING SAY THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS PROVEN ITS CASE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. SO AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME THAT PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE REMAINS. YOU WILL ALSO HEAR MENTION OF THIS 1 CONCEPT OF REASONABLE DOUBT. YOU'LL HEAR FROM ME, I SUPPOSE YOU WILL HEAR IT FROM THE OTHER 1 LAWYERS, AND YOU WILL HEAR IT FROM THE JUDGE. AND I EXPECT YOU WILL BE INSTRUCTED THAT THIS CONCEPT OF REASONABLE DOUBT IS NOT SOMETHING MAGICAL. THE JUDGE WILL TELL YOU SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES THAT A REASONABLE DOUBT IS THE TYPE OF DOUBT THAT CAUSES A PERSON TO PAUSE OR REFRAIN FROM ACTING IN AN IMPORTANT MATTER IN
r 1 HIS OR HER LIFE BASED UPON WHAT THEY HEAR AS EVIDENCE OR FROM THE LACK OF EVIDENCE, SOMETHING THAT GIVES YOU PAUSE, THAT YOU WOULD PAUSE BEFORE YOU ACTED IN AN IMPORTANT MATTER. THE JUDGE WILL GIVE YOU THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF REASONABLE DOUBT. AND IF THE COMMONWEALTH HAS NOT PROVEN MY CLIENT GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, YOU MUST FOLLOW YOUR OATHS AND VOTE TO ACQUIT. I ASKED YOU OR I MENTIONED TO YOU A COUPLE DAYS AGO THAT THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE, I WOULD SUGGEST, THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE TWO GENERAL AREAS. ONE, WHETHER OR NOT THE COMMONWEALTH HAS MET ITS BURDEN OF PROOF, HAS MET ITS RESPONSIBILITIES IN PROVING MY CLIENT 1 GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AS BEING INVOLVED IN THE SITUATION, AND IF YOU BELIEVE 1 THE TESTIMONY, BEING THE SHOOTER, THE SECOND AREA THAT I TOLD YOU THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IS IF YOU, IN FACT, FIND MY CLIENT AS BEING GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, THEN YOU'LL HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THE GOVERNMENT HAS PROVEN AGAIN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS A DELIBERATE, [.
INTENTIONAL KILLING A PREMEDITATED, DELIBERATE, KILLING WITH PREMEDITATION, THAT IT WAS THE INTENT TO KILL MR. HOWARD. AND YOU WILL HEAR THE INSTRUCTIONS OF VARIOUS DEGREES OF MURDER. SO I TOLD YOU INITIALLY THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE, YOU MAY HAVE TO DECIDE THOSE TWO THINGS. ONE, DID THEY PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, AND I'LL TALK ABOUT WHY WOULD SUGGEST THEY DID NOT PROVE BEYOND A I REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THIS PERSON WAS INVOLVED. 1 1 AND IF YOU GET BEYOND THAT, YOU THEN HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THE KILLING WAS A MURDER OF THE FIRST DEGREE, IN TALKING ABOUT THE CASE ITSELF AND WHY I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THAT THERE IS DOUBT, THERE SHOULD BE DOUBT AND THAT DOUBT IS REASONABLE HERE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE GOVERNMENT HAS MET ITS RESPONSIBILITY IN CONVINCING EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE SITUATION IS SUCH AS IT WAS TESTIFIED TO, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PROVIDED TO YOU, AND I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THE LACK OF EVIDENCE THAT WAS PROVIDED TO YOU OR THE
EVIDENCE THAT WAS NOT GIVEN TO YOU THAT I SUGGEST LEAVES ROOM FOR YOU TO FIND A DOUBT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY MET THEIR BURDEN. THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTED, BASICALLY, MS, LAWS, WHO TESTIFIED AS TO WHAT SHE SAYS TOOK PLACE. AND WHAT'S INTERESTING ABOUT THAT AND WHAT I WOULD ASK YOU TO CONSIDER, IS NOTHING IS CORROBORATED, YET THERE WAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO CORROBORATE OR BACK UP THINGS THAT MISS LAW SAID HAPPENED. FOR MS. LAWS THIS WHOLE CASE DEPENDS UPON ACCEPTANCE AT FACE VALUE OF WHAT MS. LAWS SAYS OCCURRED. FOR EXAMPLE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU GET SHOWED A PICTURE OF A GUN, A TEC-. WELL, 1 THE ONLY REASON THAT THEY SHOW YOU A PICTURE OF A TEC- IS BECAUSE MS. LAWS SAYS THAT AT SOME EARLIER OCCASION A PERSON SHE IDENTIFIES AS MY 1 CLIENT SAID, THIS IS A TEC-. THERE WAS NO DESCRIPTION FROM HER AS TO WHAT KIND OF GUN WAS USED. SHE SAID IT WAS A. MILLIMETER. YOU WERE SHOWN PICTURES OF OTHER. MILLIMETERS, SO WE'RE MAKING AN ASSUMPTION OR AT LEAST THE GOVERNMENT WANTS YOU TO MAKE AN ASSUMPTION THAT THE TYPE OF GUN WAS A TEC-, THE TYPE OF GUN
THAT THEY FLIPPED OUT HERE, THE PHOTOGRAPH. BUT THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF A DESCRIPTION THAT THAT WAS THE TYPE OF GUN THAT WAS USED. THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT A CASING THAT WAS FOUND CAME FROM A. MILLIMETER GUN. HOWEVER, WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE OTHER TYPES OF. MILLIMETER GUNS. SO THERE WAS NOTHING PRESENTED TO YOU TO CORROBORATE OR BACK UP WHAT MISS LAWS SAID WAS THE TEC- THAT SHE CLAIMS WAS USED IN THE SHOOTING. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SIMPLE, I SUGGEST, FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO SAY, WELL, DESCRIBE THE GUN, BECAUSE YOU SAW A PICTURE OF A VERY UNUSUAL LOOKING WEAPON THAT ALLEGEDLY WAS MISS LAWS. USED IN THE CASE, ACCORDING TO 1 1 YOU HEARD MISS LAWS SAY THAT SHE KNOWS MY GUY FROM SELLING DRUGS ON THE PORCH IN THE HOUSE. AGAIN, ALL WE HAVE IS HER SAYING THAT. THAT'S ALL THE GOVERNMENT HAS PRESENTED TO YOU WAS HER SAYING, OH, YEAH, I KNOW THIS GUY, WHO I KNOW AS MELLOW. THERE'S NO TESTIMONY FROM ANYONE ELSE THAT THIS PERSON, IN FACT, IS NICKNAMED MELLOW. YOU HAVE HER SAYING THAT. YOU HAVE TESTIMONY FROM HER THAT THE PEOPLE
1 INVOLVED IN THIS CASE ARE MY CLIENT -- WELL, AS I RECOLLECT IT, AND IT'S YOURS THAT COUNTS, IS THREE BALD-HEADED INDIVIDUALS. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE AS TO HOW MY CLIENT APPEARED AT THAT TIME, AGAIN, NOTHING TO CORROBORATE WHAT WAS SAID BY MS. LAWS. YOU HAVE TESTIMONY THAT THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE THERE, IF YOU ACCEPT MS. LAWS' VERSION OF WHAT TOOK PLACE OR WHO WAS THERE, YOU HAVE NO TESTIMONY FROM ANY OTHER PEOPLE, YOU HAVE NO TESTIMONY OTHER THAN MS. LAWS SAYING ON ONE OCCASION SHE WENT WITH THE DETECTIVE TO ONE OF THESE OTHER PEOPLE'S MOTHER'S HOUSE AND NOBODY WAS HOME. AGAIN, NOTHING THAT COULD HAVE BEEN 1 CORROBORATIVE OF WHAT SHE TOLD YOU IS PROVIDED TO YOU. YOU HAVE TESTIMONY ABOUT GUNS, THE TYPE 1 OF GUNS BEING USED. THERE'S NO TESTIMONY CORROBORATING THAT ANY GUNS WERE FOUND ON MY CLIENT. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY TESTIMONY AS TO WHEN MY CLIENT WAS ARRESTED. ALL THIS, AS THE COURT TOLD YOU BEFORE, IS THE BURDEN OF THE COMMONWEALTH TO PROVE THE CASE. THEM TO SHOW YOU WHAT'S GOING ON, IT'S UP TO IT'S UP TO
THEM TO THREAD TOGETHER BEFORE IT PRESENTS A CASE TO PEOPLE TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT A PERSON IS GUILTY OF MURDER. YOU HAVE NO TESTIMONY -- STRIKE THAT, YOU DO HAVE TESTIMONY THAT A TABLE WAS DUSTED FOR FINGERPRINTS. YOU HAVE -- NO RESULTS, BUT YOU HAVE TESTIMONY THERE WERE OTHER ITEMS IN THAT LOCATION. YOU HAVE TESTIMONY THAT THE POLICE GO IN, THEY FOUND THE CARTRIDGE. THAT'S NOT DUSTED FOR FINGERPRINTS. WHAT I'M TRYING TO POINT OUT TO YOU IS THAT THIS CASE HINGES ON THE TESTIMONY OF A SUPPOSED EYEWITNESS WHO TESTIFIED AS TO HER, I'M GOING TO SAY, DRUG USAGE. PEOPLE USE DRUGS. I SUPPOSE THE 1 1 COMMONWEALTH'S GOING TO ARGUE, WELL, THAT'S WHO WAS THERE WHEN THIS TOOK PLACE, OR ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT WAS THERE WHEN THIS SUPPOSEDLY TOOK PLACE. AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WEIGH HER, I'M GOING TO SAY FIVE DOLLAR A DAY HABIT OR TWENTY-FIVE DOLLAR A DAY HABIT OR LENGTH OF TIME IN A REHAB FACILITY IN EVALUATING WHETHER OR NOT SHE'S THE WITNESS THAT'S GOING TO CONVINCE YOU BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, WHETHER
1 OR NOT SHE'S THE WITNESS THAT'S GOING TO GET YOU OVER ALL THESE THINGS THAT WEREN'T SHOWN TO YOU OR THAT WEREN'T PROVIDED, THINGS, I SUBMIT, THAT ARE GOING TO GIVE YOU PAUSE. THERE'S THREE OTHER AREAS THAT I THINK SHOULD GIVE YOU PAUSE AND I SUGGEST WILL GIVE YOU PAUSE. THIS THING ABOUT THE SHOTGUN BEING FIRED IN THE HOUSE. NOW, OF COURSE, YOU HEARD THAT SUDDENLY IT WAS THE SOUND OF THE RIFLE BEING RACKED. HOWEVER, SHE SAID, YEAH, I SAW A SPARK COME OUT OF THE MUZZLE. I MEAN, IT WAS EITHER BEING RACKED OR SHE THOUGHT IT WAS BEING SHOT OR WASN "1' SHOT. WE KNOW IT WASN'T A SHOTGUN THAT WAS FIRED. FROM? WHERE'D THAT COME 1 1 SECOND THING I WANT YOU TO CONSIDER, HER FAILURE TO MENTION, ACCORDING TO HER, THE FACT THAT SHE WAS PHYSICALLY BURGLARIZED OR ROBBED OR MY CLIENT SUPPOSEDLY CAME INTO THE HOUSE THAT MORNING WITH ANOTHER GUNMAN. NOW, AGAIN, ANTICIPATING WHAT THE GOVERNMENT'S GOING TO SAY, WELL, SHE WAS UPSET, SHE WAS UPSET WHEN SHE GAVE THE VERSION OF WHAT HAPPENED TO THE POLICE THE NIGHT OF THE SHOOTING, OR THE EARLY
MORNING HOURS AFTER THE SHOOTING. WELL, SHE WASN'T UPSET ENOUGH TO MENTION THAT THIS PERSON THAT SHE KNOWS AS MELLOW WAS THERE, YET SHE WAS UPSET ENOUGH TO FORGET ABOUT A GUNMAN WHERE SHE JUST WITNESSED A SHOOTING INVOLVING A GUN A NUMBER OF HOURS LATER. AGAIN, SOMETHING TO GIVE YOU PAUSE, SOMETHING TO SAY, WELL, MAYBE THEY DIDN'T MEET THEIR BURDEN. THE OTHER SITUATION I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO CONSIDER WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A DOUBT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THINGS OCCURRED THE WAY THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU IS THE THING ABOUT MR, HOWARD BEING SHOT IN THE STOMACH. YES, IT'S UNDERSTANDABLE THAT SOMEONE 1 SEES SOMEONE LAYING ON THE GROUND WITH THE BULLET EXITING THROUGH THE STOMACH THAT IT'S REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT THE PERSON WAS SHOT 1 IN THE STOMACH. HOWEVER, THAT'S NOT WHAT SHE SAID, ACTUALLY, I'M NOT SURE WHERE SHE WOUND UP BEING. AND I SUGGEST THERE'S SOME QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THE SHOOTER STOOD BEHIND HIM, ACCORDING TO HER, OR THE SHOOTER MOVED AROUND TO THE FRONT. BECAUSE, AGAIN, I LEAVE THAT TO YOUR DISCUSSION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT SHE
TESTIFIED THAT WHEN THE SHOT -- IF SHE SAW THE SHOT. SHE SAID THAT THE SHOOTER MOVED IN FRONT OF MR. HOWARD, AND VARIOUS OTHER TIMES SAID, NO, IT WAS BEHIND. AGAIN, THESE ARE THE SITUATIONS, THIS IS THE TYPE OF TESTIMONY THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS ASKING YOU TO BASE A VERDICT OF GUILTY AS TO MURDER OF THE FIRST DEGREE AGAINST MR. LAWSON. IF YOU GET PAST THE REASONABLE DOUBT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT MY CLIENT WAS THE SHOOTER OR WAS THERE, AS I TOLD YOU, YOU HAVE TO DECIDE WHAT MR. LAWSON IS GUILTY OF. AND I SUGGEST TO 1 YOU THAT IF YOU GET TO THAT DISCUSSION, THE GOVERNMENT, AGAIN, HAS FAILED TO SHOW BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THIS WAS A DELIBERATE, INTENTIONAL, PREMEDITATED KILLING IN THE MIND OF THE SHOOTER OF MR. HOWARD. ANYTHING THAT 1 THE GOVERNMENT SAYS TO YOU, I SUGGEST, IN THAT REGARD, IS HIS ASSUMPTIONS, HIS SPECULATION. I SUGGEST TO YOU THAT THE COURT WILL INSTRUCT YOU THAT WE CAN'T KNOW WHAT'S IN SOMEONE'S MIND WHEN THEY PERFORM AN ACT. WE DON'T DO IT. WHAT WE DO IS, WE USE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE LOOK AT CIRCUMSTANCES TO TRY TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT WE
CAN INJECT OURSELVES INTO THE THOUGHT PROCESS OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S ACT. SO THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO SAY, WELL, LET'S LOOK AT THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE SHOOTER GOES TO THE HOUSE WITH A GUN, WHAT ELSE WAS HE GOING TO USE THAT GUN FOR? WELL, ACCORDING TO THEIR THEORY OF THE CASE, THIS IS SOME KIND OF ROBBERY, THE SHOOTER WENT WITH THE GUN, IF YOU BELIEVE THEIR THEORY, TO COMMIT A ROBBERY TO INTIMIDATE PEOPLE, DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THEY WENT TO KILL SOMEBODY OR THAT HE OR SHE WENT TO KILL SOMEBODY. THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING -- MAY ARGUE, WELL, THE BULLET, THE BULLET WAS CHAMBERED, WELL, WE DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT BULLET GOT CHAMBERED. WE DON'T KNOW WHY 1 THAT BULLET GOT CHAMBERED. PRESENTED TO YOU. THAT WAS NEVER 1 I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO ALSO CONSIDER WHAT WAS NOT DONE IF YOU, AGAIN, DECIDE THAT MR. LAWSON WAS INVOLVED IN THIS, OR WHOMEVER THE SHOOTER WAS. NOBODY ELSE WAS THREATENED WITH DEATH IN THE HOUSE AT THE TIME THIS INCIDENT TOOK PLACE, GUN WASN'T POINTED AT ANYONE'S HEAD. THE SHOOTER DIDN'T PUT THE GUN
AT MR. HOWARD'S HEAD, THE SHOOTER DIDN'T POINT THE GUN AT THE CHEST OF MR, HOWARD OR THE UPPER BACK OF MR. HOWARD. THE DISCUSSION WAS OVER. THE GOVERNMENT'S GOING TO SAY, TAKE THAT AS A BAD SIGN. THE DISCUSSION WAS OVER AND HE COLD-BLOODEDLY SHOT THE MAN. BUT THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY TRUE. I SUGGEST, IF THE CONVERSATION WAS OVER, NOBODY WAS YELLING, WE DON'T KNOW, AGAIN, WE DON'T KNOW THE TRIGGER PULL OF ANY WEAPON, WE DON'T KNOW IF, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, YOU KNOW, THE DIMENSIONS OF THAT KITCHEN, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THERE, WE DON'T KNOW IF SOMEONE JOSTLED SOMEBODY. WE DON'T KNOW IF THINGS GOT PUSHED AGAINST SOMEONE, ALL 1 WE KNOW IS THE GUN IS AGAINST THE CLOTHING OF 1 MR. HOWARD WHEN HE GETS SHOT, WE DON'T KNOW IF -- JUST BECAUSE THE SHOOTING TAKES PLACE WHEN APPARENTLY THERE'S NO MORE DISCUSSION OVER THIS MONEY, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE GENTLEMAN WAS EXECUTED. WHAT IT MAY MEAN IS THAT THERE WAS AN INTENT TO INJURE, IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THE GUNMAN FIRED THE GUN PURPOSELY. I'LL ASK YOU TO THINK ABOUT WHERE THE
BULLET ENTERED. IF SOMEONE WERE INTENDING TO KILL SOMEONE OR EXECUTE SOMEONE, I SUGGEST IT'S REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT THE SHOT WOULDN'T GO INTO THE LOWER BACK. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IF THEY INTENDED TO HURT SOMEBODY, IT MAY VERY WELL GO INTO THE LOWER BACK. UNFORTUNATELY THE MAN DIED, AND WHATEVER HAPPENED OUT THERE THAT NIGHT BY WHOMEVER SHOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, SOMETIMES, SOMETIMES DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ARE DIFFICULT, DIFFICULT TO PERFORM. YOU MAY FEEL THAT POSSIBLY THINGS HAPPENED A CERTAIN WAY. YOU MAY FEEL THAT PROBABLY THINGS HAPPENED A CERTAIN WAY. AND BECAUSE OF THAT, BECAUSE OF YOUR OATHS, SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO GET BEYOND 1 THAT AND FACE UP TO THE RESPONSIBILITY. AND 1 HERE THE RESPONSIBILITY IS ON THE GOVERNMENT TO REMOVE REASONABLE DOUBT FROM A CRIMINAL MATTER, HERE THEY'VE CHARGED MURDER AND THEY'RE LOOKING FOR A VERDICT OF MURDER OF THE FIRST DEGREE. I SUGGEST TO YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THAT WHEN YOU DISCUSS THIS CASE, BASED UPON BOTH THE EVIDENCE AND BASED UPON THINGS THAT - REASONABLE QUESTIONS THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE,
THERE IS DOUBT. AND ALTHOUGH SOMETIMES DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY REQUIRES A DIFFICULT CHOICE, YOU ARE DUTY-BOUND UNDER YOUR OATHS, I SUGGEST TO YOU, TO RETURN WITH A NOT GUILTY VERDICT AS TO MR. LAWSON. THE COURT: MR, MOORE: THANK YOU. MR. MOORE. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR, GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. THE JURY: MR. MOORE: GOOD MORNING. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I'LL JOIN THE OTHER ATTORNEYS IN THANKING YOU FOR YOUR SERVICES IN THIS VERY IMPORTANT MATTER, I HOPE NOT TO BE UNDULY REPETITIOUS. THE NATURE OF OUR CASE IS SUCH THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR SOME REPETITION. I REPRESENT ONE PERSON IN THE 1 1 CASE AND I HAVE TO POINT OUT TO YOU THINGS AS I SEE THEM IN THIS CASE, EVEN IF THEY TEND TO REPEAT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD. AND I'M CERTAIN COUNSEL THAT FOLLOWS ME IS GOING TO HAVE BE BELABORED OF THE SAME PROBLEM. IN A FEW MINUTES, SOMETIME LATER TODAY HIS HONOR JUDGE LINEBERGER IS GOING TO DEFINE FOR YOU THE MOST IMPORTANT WORDS IN ALL OF
CRIMINAL LAW. PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. YOU ALREADY HEARD THE DEFINITION. PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, ACCORDING TO THE COURTS AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, MEANS THE KIND OF DOUBT THAT WOULD CAUSE A REASONABLE, CAREFUL, PRUDENT PERSON TO HESITATE BEFORE TAKING ACTION IN A MATTER OF IMPORTANCE IN THEIR OWN AFFAIRS. IN YOUR OWN AFFAIRS. NOT IN MY CLIENT'S AFFAIRS, IF YOU WOULD HESITATE, IF THIS WAS A MATTER OF IMPORTANCE TO YOU. IF YOU WOULD REFRAIN FROM TAKING ACTION IF THIS WERE A MATTER OF IMPORTANCE -- 1 MR. DOYLE: THE COURT: MR. MOORE: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. OVERRULED. OF IMPORTANCE TO YOU, IT 1 MAY BE SAID THAT YOU HAVE REASONABLE DOUBT. LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE THAT I SOMETIMES USE THAT MAY HELP TO CLARIFY THE CONCEPT OF PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. LET'S SUPPOSE FOR EXAMPLE THAT YOU AND YOUR MATE, YOU HAVE A CAR, AND THE CAR APPEARS TO RUN FINE MOST OF THE TIME, NOT REALLY A PROBLEM, BUT YOU NOTICE THAT FROM TIME TO TIME
YOU HAVE TO GO ONE PLACE WHILE HE OR SHE HAS TO GO SOMEWHERE ELSE, AND YOU'RE TIRED OF THE CONSTANT INCREASE IN THE SEPTA FARES AND THE DECREASE IN SERVICE YOU'RE GETTING, AND YOU DECIDE YOU'RE GOING TO PURCHASE A USED CAR. ONE EVENING YOU GO DOWN TO THE USED CAR DEALER, WALK AROUND, START KICKING TIRES AND DO THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING DO WHEN THEY'RE LOOKING AT A CAR. ONE POINT YOU START TO FOCUS ON A PARTICULAR VEHICLE. YOU START TO INSPECT THAT VEHICLE WITH GREAT CARE. DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR INSPECTION YOU NOTICE THERE APPEARS TO BE WHAT LOOKS LIKE AN OIL STAIN ON THE GROUND. SO YOU CALL THE DEALER OVER. NO, DON'T 1 WORRY ABOUT THAT. DEALER TELLS YOU WHAT PROBABLY HAPPENED, WHEN WE BRING THESE CARS 1 OUT AND PUT THEM ON THE LOT, BEFORE WE BRING THEM OUT, WE CHANGE ALL THE FLUIDS, WHAT YOU PROBABLY SEE ON THE GROUND, EXCESS FLUID THAT DRIPPED OFF ON THE GROUND. EVERYTHING'S GOING TO BE FINE. IT MAKES SENSE TO YOU, SO YOU CONTINUE YOUR INSPECTION OF THE CAR. YOU TRY THE BRAKES, YOU NOTICE THAT FROM
TIME TO TIME WHEN YOU PRESS THE BRAKES, THEY DON'T SEEM TO HOLD, SEEM TO GO ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE FLOOR. SO YOU CALL THE DEALER OVER AGAIN. AW, DON'T WORRY ABOUT THAT. THE DEALER TELLS YOU, WHAT PROBABLY HAPPENED, WHEN WE WERE CHANGING THE FLUID, SOMEBODY PROBABLY FORGOT TO PUT IN BRAKE FLUID, WITH BRAKE FLUID. WE'RE GOING TO FULL IT UP EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE FINE. FOR EVERY QUESTION THAT YOU HAVE, HE HAS AN ANSWER. WELL, IF AT THE CONCLUSION OF YOUR INSPECTION OF THE VEHICLE YOU WOULDN'T HESITATE TO PURCHASE IT, YOU WOULDN'T HESITATE TO PUT YOUR HUSBAND, YOUR WIFE, YOUR KID, YOUR GRANDKIDS IN THAT VEHICLE, IT MAY BE SAID THAT 1 YOU DON'T HAVE A REASONABLE DOUBT. BUT IF YOU 1 WOULD HESITATE, IF YOU WOULD REFRAIN FROM MAKING THAT PURCHASE, YOU HAVE A REASONABLE DOUBT, LITTLE LATER I'LL BE TALKING TO YOU ABOUT THE OIL STAINS ON THE GROUND IN THIS CASE, AND SOMETIME LATER SOMEBODY WILL BE ADDRESSING YOU TELLING YOU, DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT. YOU KNOW WHAT THE PROSECUTOR'S CASE KIND
OF REMINDS ME OF? SOMEONE INVITES YOU OVER FOR DINNER, YOU'RE SITTING THERE, THEY GIVE YOU A BOWL OF SPAGHETTI, LOOKS VERY ENTICING, AND YOU BEGIN TO EAT. WHEN YOU BEGIN TO EAT, YOU NOTICE THERE APPEARS TO BE WORMS IN THE BOWL OF SPAGHETTI. THEY TELL YOU, DON'T WORRY ABOUT THAT, JUST EAT THE GOOD PARTS, JUST EAT THE GOOD PARTS. SO THAT'S WHAT THE PROSECUTOR WANTS YOU TO DO HERE, IGNORE THE WORMS IN THE CASE AND EAT THE GOOD PARTS IN THE SPAGHETTI, EAT THE GOOD PARTS. I ALMOST GOT THE IMPRESSION DURING THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT YOU TO HEAR VERY MUCH. WHEN I STOOD UP HERE AT THE 1 BEGINNING OF THIS CASE, I TOLD YOU, KIND OF THREW A CHALLENGE OUT TO THE PROSECUTOR, WE KNOW THAT ACCORDING TO LENA LAWS, YOU HAVE 1 THREE AVAILABLE WITNESSES, WE KNOW THAT, SEE IF WE HEAR FROM THEM, AND IF WE DO NOT HEAR FROM THEM IN A CASE WHERE THEY TELL YOU THEY HAVE CHARGED MY CLIENT WITH FIRST DEGREE MURDER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO WANT TO KNOW WHY. YOU'RE NOT HERE TO DO A FAVOR FOR THE PROSECUTION. MR. PADOVA TELLS YOU THAT EVERYONE HAS A
0 RESPONSIBILITY HERE, EVERYONE HERE HAS A FUNCTION, I HAVE A FUNCTION, THE JUDGE HAS A FUNCTION, PROSECUTOR HAS A FUNCTION, IT'S HIS FUNCTION TO GIVE YOU THE EVIDENCE THAT'S NECESSARY FOR YOU TO CONCLUDE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT MY CLIENT WAS GUILTY OF THE CRIMES THAT WERE CHARGED. AND WHEN YOU TELL SOMEONE THAT WE WANT TO BRING YOU IN HERE, WE WANT TO PUT YOU ON TRIAL FOR YOUR VERY LIFE, THEN YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEMAND, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXPECT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO COME WITH EVERYTHING THAT THEY HAVE, NOT TO TOSS IT ON TO YOU, GIVE YOU THE RESPONSIBILITY. IT'S THEIR RESPONSIBILITY, YOUR RESPONSIBILITY IS ONLY TO 1 1 WEIGH WHAT IT IS THAT THEY GIVE YOU OR THEY DON'T GIVE YOU. OKAY. LENA LAWS. THE PROSECUTOR HAS ALREADY BEGUN TO ATTEMPT TO MINIMIZE HER DRUG ADDICTION. IS THERE ANYONE ON THIS JURY WHO HAS NOT SEEN THE COMMERCIAL ON TELEVISION WHERE THEY SAY, THIS IS YOUR BRAIN, THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON DRUGS? THAT'S YOUR GOVERNMENT SPENDING MULTI-BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO TELL PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW WHAT DRUG ADDICTION WILL
1 DO FOR YOU. ANYONE KNOW A DRUG ADDICT? ANYONE HERE KNOW AN ALCOHOLIC? YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DON'T GET UP ONE DAY AND JUST START SNORTING DRUGS OR DRINKING ALCOHOL AND THE NEXT DAY YOUR PERCEPTION IS ALL BLURRED, AND ALL THAT. IT DOESN'T HAPPEN THAT WAY. IT'S AN INSIDIOUS DISEASE. YOU HEARD THE MEDICAL EXAMINER TELL YOU HOW THE DRUG STAYS IN YOUR SYSTEM OVER HOURS, WHEN YOU REPLENISH IT, REPLENISH IT, REPLENISH IT, YOU'RE NOT GETTING RID OF THE DRUGS FROM THE DAY BEFORE, THE DAY BEFORE. AND IT'S OVER TIME, IT'S OVER TIME 1 1 THAT YOUR MEMORY BECOMES BLURRED, THAT YOUR PERCEPTION BECOMES BLURRED, NOT OVERNIGHT. SO WH YOU TELL ME THAT YOU DO DRUGS EVERY DAY, AT ONE POINT SHE SAID $, ANOTHER POINT SHE SAID AS MUCH AS SHE COULD GET, FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS, I CAN GUARANTEE YOU THAT THE PERSON THAT YOU SAW IN THAT CHAIR WAS NOT THE PERSON WHO WAS A WITNESS IN THE CASE. REMEMBER, THIS IS AFTER A YEAR AND A HALF OF DRUG REHABILITATION, A YEAR AND THREE MONTHS, I THINK SHE SAID, REHABILITATION AND HOPEFULLY ALMOST THREE YEARS ABSTINENCE.
BUT WHO WAS THE PERSON WHO WAS A WITNESS IN THIS CASE? STAR. LENA LAWS, WHAT WAS HER ABILITY TO PERCEIVE THAT NIGHT? LET ME TELL YOU THIS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. DON'T ASK ME WHY SHE WOULD COME IN HERE, WHY SHE MIGHT COME IN HERE AND SAY THINGS THAT WERE NOT TRUE. NOT A PSYCHIATRIST, I'M NOT A PSYCHOLOGIST. I'M I'M AN ATTORNEY. I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS HER TRUE PERCEPTION. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE REASON MIGHT BE, BUT I TOLD YOU AT THE OUTSET SHE WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE THE STATEMENTS THAT SHE MADE INITIALLY. I TOLD YOU THAT. THE PROSECUTOR STOOD UP HERE IN HIS OPENING AND SAID, SHE'S GOING TO STAND BY 1 EVERYTHING THAT SHE SAID FROM THE START. AND I KNEW THAT SHE COULDN'T. I KNEW THAT SHE 1 COULDN'T, DIFFERENT. I KNEW SHE HAD TO TELL YOU SOMETHING I KNEW SHE HAD TO TELL YOU THAT WHEN SHE DESCRIBED THE SHOOTING THAT SHE SAYS SHE SAW, WHEN SHE TOLD THE OFFICERS THAT PERSON THAT SHE KNOWS AS MELLOW STARTED TO WALK AWAY AND THEN TURNED AND FIRED, THAT THAT COULDN'T BE TRUE. DID SHE CHANGE IT? WELL, SHE HAD TO
FOR IT TO COMPORT, FOR IT TO FIT WITH THE EVIDENCE THAT WE KNOW WHEN SHE TOLD THEM THAT NIGHT, TOLD THE FIRST OFFICER TO RESPOND, THE PERSON SHE HAD IDENTIFIED AS MY CLIENT FIRED A SHOTGUN INTO THE CEILING, I KNEW SHE HAD TO CHANGE THAT. AND THEN SHE STARTS TALKING ABOUT, WELL, SHE TALKED TO THE DETECTIVES. WHERE'D YOU GET THE TERM "RACKING A GUN"? I'M FAMILIAR WITH THAT TERM BECAUSE OF WHAT I DO. WHERE'D YOU GET THAT TERM? WELL, I TALKED TO DETECTIVES. 1 YEAH, YOU TALKED TO DETECTIVES, BECAUSE AFTER THE DETECTIVES LOOKED, AFTER THEY LOOKED AT YOUR STATEMENT, THEY KNEW IF THEY WERE GOING TO USE YOU AS A WITNESS, YOU HAD TO EXPLAIN THIS AWAY. DON'T WORRY ABOUT THAT. DON'T WORRY ABOUT THAT. SO COME IN HERE AND EXPLAIN IT THE 1 WAY SHE DID. LET ME SAY THIS TO YOU. I DON'T THINK THE PROSECUTOR HAS AN OBLIGATION TO BRING IN EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO MAY HAVE KNOWN SOMETHING ABOUT THIS CASE, IT'S NEVER BEEN DONE. BUT WHEN YOU HAVE A PERSON WHO HAS MADE SUBSTANTIAL AND MATERIAL ERRORS IN WHAT THEY
HAVE SAID ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED, AND YOU HAVE AVAILABLE TO YOU, PRESUMABLY -- THAT'S WHY I MADE IT A POINT TO BRING OUT, WELL, DIDN'T YOU SAY THAT THIS PERSON, DENISE, DIDN'T YOU SAY THAT HER MOTHER LIVED RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER? DIDN'T YOU GIVE HER ADDRESS? FINE. WHY NOT AT LEAST BRING THE DETECTIVES TO SAY, OH, YEAH, SHE TOOK US AROUND, WE KNOCKED, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THESE TWO PEOPLE WHO WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN PRESENT WHEN THIS INCIDENT HAPPENED JUST DISAPPEARED FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH? OMAR, WHO IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN A GOOD 1 ENOUGH FRIEND TO THE DECEASED IN THE CASE THAT HE COULD SIT IN THAT MAN'S HOME WITH HIS WOMAN WHILE HE'S AWAY, AND HE JUST DISAPPEARS FROM 1 THE FACE OF THE EARTH. DENISE JUST DISAPPEARS FROM THE FAC~ OF THE EARTH. OUT TO YOU, YOU HAVE NOTHING. MR. PADOVA POINTED IF I TOLD YOU, IF I TOLD YOU THAT I KILLED J.F.K., I CAN TELL YOU THAT. I KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE INCIDENT, I KNOW ABOUT THE GRASSY KNOLL, I KNOW ABOUT THE BOOK DEPOSITORY, I KNOW WHERE HIS WIFE WAS
SEATED, I KNOW WHERE GOVERNOR CONNOLLY WAS SEATED. IF I CAME AND TOLD YOU, I COULD MAKE, AT FIRST BLUSH, A PERFECT STORY, BUT IT'S WHEN YOU BEGIN TO INSPECT IT MORE CLOSELY I CAN'T BACK IT UP. AND WHAT WE DID HERE WAS TO INSPECT THIS CASE MORE CLOSELY, AND I SAY TO YOU, YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION UNDER THE LAW, WOULD SUBMIT, TO FIND MY CLIENT NOT GUILTY. WHAT ABOUT THE LACK OF INVESTIGATION? I THE LACK OF INVESTIGATION. LENA LAWS COMES IN 1 AND SHE TELLS YOU, AND LISTEN TO THIS, SHE TELLS THE DETECTIVES WHEN SHE GIVES THE STATEMENT THAT ON ONLY ONE OCCASION THEY HAD SOLD DRUGS FROM THE HOUSE, NOW, AFTER HER POST-DRUG OR REHAB RECOLLECTION THEY WERE THERE -- MY CLIENT WAS THERE 0 TIMES, FIFTY TIMES. NOW, THIS IS FROM THE WITNESS STAND. 1 NOW THEY'RE THERE 0 TIMES. IF YOU WENT TO A DOCTOR AND SAID, DOCTOR, HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU PERFORMED THIS OPERATION, FIFTY TIMES, FINE, AND YOU COME BACK NEXT WEEK AND SAY, DOCTOR, HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU SAY YOU PERFORMED THIS TYPE OF OPERATION THAT YOU SUGGEST I HAVE, DON'T YOU WANT ANOTHER OPINION,
DON'T YOU WANT TO SEE MAYBE A DIFFERENT DOCTOR? KEEP IN MIND THIS IS HER POST-REHAB TESTIMONY. YOU SEE, WHEN A PERSON, I WOULD SUBMIT, IS ON DRUGS AND COMES OFF OF DRUGS A YEAR AND A HALF LATER, YOUR MEMORY DOESN'T CLARIFY ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED BACK WHEN YOU WERE ON DRUGS. YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING? YOU CAN'T CLARIFY THAT PERIOD IN YOUR LIFE. THAT'S GONE. THAT'S GONE. SO WAS IT ONE TIME OR WAS IT 0 TIMES? YOU THINK MAYBE IF MY CLIENT HAD EVER BEEN IN THAT HOUSE JUST ONE TIME LET ALONE 0 TIMES, THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE PRODUCED SOME EVIDENCE, ONE PRINT FROM SOMEWHERE ONE TIME THAT HE WAS THERE? DON'T YOU WANT SOME KIND OF CORROBORATION WHEN THEY TELL YOU THEY WANT YOU 1 TO CONVICT HIM OF FIRST DEGREE? YOU DEMAND IT, 1 THAT'S YOUR JOB. YOU DEMAND IT. AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT, IT'S NOT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE IT UP FOR THEM. OF COURSE WE'RE ALL HUMAN. WE'RE ALL HUMAN. WAS ANYONE BADGERING HER WHEN SHE WAS ON THE STAND? NO. I WAS TRYING NOT TO. BUT I HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY HERE. I HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO MY CLIENT, THE SAME
RESPONSIBILITY I WOULD HAVE IF IT WAS SOMEONE THAT YOU LOVED, THE SAME RESPONSIBILITY TO DO MY BEST, TO BE AS POLITE AS I CAN, BUT TO TRY TO GET INFORMATION TO TRY TO SHOW YOU THEY HAVEN'T SHOWN YOU A THING. THEY HAVEN'T SHOWN YOU A THING. INFORMATION. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEMAND THAT YOU HAVE A RIGHT, DO YOU UNDERSTAND, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY, THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO BELIEVE MY CLIENT'S INNOCENCE IN ORDER TO HAVE A SWORN OBLIGATION TO FIND HIM NOT GUILTY? THERE'S NO WAY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO COME IN HERE, THIS WHOLE FORMAL PROCEEDING, JUDGE UP THERE, THE COURT REPORTER, LAWYERS, FAMILY MEMBERS, AND NOT HAVE A SUSPICION. YOU HAVE TO HAVE AT 1 LEAST A SUSPICION. BUT SUSPICION IS NOT SUFFICIENT. YOU MAY THINK THAT HE DID IT, NOT 1 SUFFICIENT. YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE THEY'VE SHOWN YOU BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT HE IS GUILTY. I SUGGEST TO YOU WHEN YOU GO BACK THERE AND YOU BEGIN TO DELIBERATE, DON'T GET CAUGHT UP IN, DID HE DO IT OR DIDN'T HE DO IT. BECAUSE LIKE ME, YOU WERE NOT THERE. AND YOU, YOU, YOU AND ME, WE'LL GO TO OUR GRAVES NOT
KNOWING DID HE DO IT OR DIDN'T HE DO IT, BUT THAT'S NOT YOUR JOB. YOUR JOB IS TO TO DETERMINE DID THEY PROVE IT, WHETHER HE DID IT OR DIDN'T DO IT, DID THEY PROVE IT, AND DID THEY PROVE IT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. BECAUSE UNDER OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, HE MAY WELL HAVE DONE IT, HE MAY WELL HAVE DONE IT. BUT IF THEY HAVEN'T PROVEN IT, YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO FIND HIM NOT GUILTY. AND THE CONVERSE, UNFORTUNATELY, IS ALSO TRUE. THERE ARE TIMES WHEN PEOPLE DIDN'T DO IT BUT THE EVIDENCE IS SUCH, IT'S BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, AND IT APPEARS THAT THEY DID DO IT. AND THOSE JURIES HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO FIND THEM GUILTY. THAT'S THEIR OBLIGATION. 1 1 THAT'S THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. WHEN YOU CONSIDER PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, I'D LIKE TO USE AN EXAMPLE. A DIFFERENT COUNTRY, SCOTLAND, WHERE THEY HAVE JURIES, THAT ARE COMPRISED OF PEOPLE, HAVE AVAILABLE TO THEM THREE VERDICTS. THE THEY VERDICT OF GUILTY, NOT GUILTY, AND NOT PROVEN. AND NOT PROVEN, IT'S BEEN SAID TO ME, WELL, I HAVE A SUSPICION, I CAN'T SAY THAT HE'S NOT
GUILTY, I CAN'T SAY, YOU PROVED HIM GUILTY, IT'S NOT PROVEN. WE DON'T HAVE NOT PROVEN IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA. WE DON'T HAVE NOT PROVEN IN THE UNITED STATES. NOT PROVEN MEANS, NOT GUILTY. NOT PROVEN MEANS, WE NEEDED MORE EVIDENCE. WE NEEDED SOMETHING. WITH RESPECT, FOR EXAMPLE, TO THE NEIGHBOR, ANY NEIGHBOR WHO WOULD COME AND SAY, I KNOW THAT GUY, I SAW HIM IN AND OUT OF THAT HOUSE ABOUT 0 TIMES. I'VE SEEN HIM. JUST ONE PERSON. ONE PERSON. WHERE IS THE PERSON WHO WOULD COME IN AND, SAY, OH, I KNOW THAT GUY, HIS NAME IS STINK? NOBODY IN THE WHOLE WORLD. NO ONE IN THE WHOLE WORLD. WHERE'S OMAR AND WHERE'S DENISE? LET ME 1 TELL YOU THIS. I KNOW PEOPLE DON'T LIKE TO GET INVOLVED IN THESE TYPES OF SITUATIONS. THEY 1 DON'T COME IN WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT MURDER OR ANYTHING ELSE OF A SERIOUS NATURE, ROBBERY. WHAT THE POLICE OFTENTIMES HAVE TO DO, THEY SO HAVE TO GO OUT AND FIND THOSE PEOPLE AND BRING THEM IN, SUBPOENA THEM, OR ARREST THEM IF THEY HAVE TO, BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO COME IN AND TESTIFY. WHERE ARE THEY? WHERE IS
0 THE TESTIMONY REGARDING THE EFFORT THAT THEY USED TO TRY TO GET THESE PEOPLE? THIS CASE HAS GONE EXACTLY, EXACTLY AS I ANTICIPATED. OH, YEAH. LET ME SUGGEST THIS TO YOU. REMEMBER, COULD I HAVE GONE OUT AND GOTTEN OMAR? COULD I HAVE GONE OUT AND GOTTEN DENISE? COULD I HAVE COME IN WITH FAMILY MEMBERS AND SAY NOBODY'S CALLED THIS GUY STINK IN HIS ENTIRE LIFE? THAT MAY BE SO. BUT AS THE JUDGE SAID AT THE OUTSET, I HAVE NO OBLIGATION, I HAVE NO SUCH OBLIGATION TO PROVE. THE BURDEN IS ON THE COMMONWEALTH. THE ONLY EVIDENCE WE PRESENTED TO YOU, CHARACTER. AND WHY WAS THAT IMPORTANT? IT'S LEGALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE UNTIL WE PUT -- UNTIL I PUT MY CLIENT'S 1 1 CHARACTER IN EVIDENCE, THEY CAN'T ATTACK IT. THE LAW PREVENTS THEM FROM ATTACKING HIS CHARACTER UNLESS AND UNTIL I MADE AN ISSUE OF IT. I MADE AN ISSUE OF IT. HERE ARE CHARACTER WITNESSES. HERE ARE PEOPLE WHO WOULD TESTIFY THIS YOUNG MAN HAS AN OUTSTANDING REPUTATION IN THE COMMUNITY FOR BEING A PEACEFUL AND LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN. THAT'S THROWING DOWN THE GAUNTLET TO THE COMMONWEALTH.
1 NOW, HERE'S WHAT YOU DO, COMMONWEALTH. YOU COME IN HERE WITH ALL THOSE PEOPLE THAT YOU KNOW WHO WOULD SAY, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, IF HE DOESN'T HAVE A GOOD REPUTATION IN THE COMMUNITY FOR BEING A PEACEFUL, LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN. HE'S A DRUG DEALER AND WE WILL PRESENT WHO? YOU WILL PRESENT WHO? AND BELIEVE ME, IN THAT SECTION OF THE CITY THESE DAYS, IN THAT SECTION OF THE CITY, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO KNOW WEST PHILADELPHIA, THERE ARE COMMUNITY WATCH GROUPS, PEOPLE STANDING ON THE CORNER IN VARIOUS AREAS WHERE THIS HAPPENED WITH HARD HATS ON, OH, THEY WOULD BE IN HERE AND THEY WOULD TELL YOU UNDER OATH, OH, YEAH, I KNOW THAT GUY. AND YOU HEARD FROM NO ONE. YOU HEARD FROM NO ONE. 1 1 SO WHEN THE PROSECUTOR RISES AND HE STARTS TO TELL YOU TO IGNORE THINGS THAT I'VE TALKED ABOUT, THINK ABOUT WHAT MR. PADOVA WAS TALKING ABOUT AND MR. TINARI WAS TALKING ABOUT. I TOLD YOU AT THE BEGINNING I WOULD STAND HERE AND ASK YOU TO FIND MY CLIENT NOT GUILTY OF THE CHARGES, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AND I DO SO NOW, ASK YOU TO FIND HIM NOT GUILTY. FOR YOUR SERVICE IN THIS MATTER. AND THANK YOU THANK YOU,
THE COURT: MR. TINARI. MR, TINARI: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. WITH SUBMISSION OF THE COURT, MAY JURY? I ADDRESS THE THE COURT: MR. TINARI: YES. COUNSEL, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, GOOD MORNING. THE JURY: MR. TINARI: GOOD MORNING. ONCE AGAIN I FIND MYSELF IN THE POSITION OF SPEAKING LAST, THAT SOME OF THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK WILL BE REPETITIOUS. BUT MERELY BECAUE IT'S REPETITIOUS DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S NOT IMPORTANT. AS A MATTER OF FACT, 1 TO THE CONTRARY, REPETITION MEANS IT IS IMPORTANT. ON BEHALF OF MR. GLADDEN AND THE GLADDEN FAMILY, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR KIND 1 ATTENTION, YOUR PATIENCE. IN TERMS OF THE LENGTH OF THE TRIAL, CONCERNING THE EVIDENCE, IT'S BEEN RELATIVELY SHORT. IN TERMS OF YOU COMING FROM YOUR DAILY WORK PLACES AND YOUR HOMES, IT'S BEEN RATHER LENGTHY. I NEED NOT REMIND YOU THAT THIS IS AN IMPORTANT CASE. IT'S IMPORTANT TO THE COMMONWEALTH, NO DOUBT,
AND OF COURSE IMPORTANT TO MR. GLADDEN, AS WELL AS TO THE OTHER YOUNG MEN WHO ARE HERE IN THIS COURTROOM. YES, THERE ARE PRINCIPLES OF LAW THAT THE COURT WILL GIVE YOU, AND, YES, YOU HAVE MADE PROMISES, YOU HAVE CONTRACTED WITH EVERYONE IN THE COURTROOM TO FOLLOW THOSE PRINCIPLES OF LAW. IT WOULD BE A BREACH OF YOUR PARTICULAR DUTY IF YOU WERE NOT TO FOLLOW THAT. WE RELY UPON THAT PROMISE. IN TERMS OF THE PRINCIPLES OF LAW, I SUGGEST TO YOU WHEN WE SPEAK ABOUT THE 1 PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND BURDEN OF PROOF AND REASONABLE DOUBT, THAT THEY ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANY OF THE DEFINITIONS CONCERNING ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY, CONSPIRACY, MURDER, ROBBERY. AND THE REASON THAT THOSE 1 PRINCIPLES THAT WE'RE SPEAKING ABOUT, THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, REASONABLE DOUBT, AND BURDEN OF PROOF, ARE IMPORTANT, MORE IMPORTANT, BECAUSE THEY ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY USED FOR EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US, FOR EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE UNITED STATES WHO ARE CITIZENS. THAT'S WHY IT'S REPEATED CONSTANTLY TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE
BEEN SELECTED, SPECIALLY SELECTED TO COME INTO THIS COURTROOM. IMPORTANCE. IT'S REPEATED BECAUSE OF ITS THERE ARE ALL DIFFERENT WAYS OF EXPLAINING PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. IT'S SIMPLY, AS I TOLD YOU IN MY OPENING REMARKS, IT MEANS AN OPENNESS OF MIND. IT MEANS, IN REALITY, THAT YOU, FROM THE VERY MOMENT THAT YOU CAME INTO THIS COURTROOM IN THIS FORMAL SETTING, THAT YOU ARE OF A MIND THAT MR. GLADDEN WALKED IN THIS COURTROOM NOT ONLY WITH THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE BUT HE IS INNOCENT. HE COMES IN HERE WITH A CLEAN SLATE. 1 HIS HONOR WILL TELL YOU, AND YOU'VE HEARD IT CONSTANTLY, THAT THERE IS A BURDEN, A RESPONSIBILITY THAT COMMONWEALTH HAS, AND THAT IS TO PROVE GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. 1 YOU HEARD THE DEFINITION. YOU KNOW WHAT A REASONABLE DOUBT IS. NOW, AS A RESULT OF WHAT HAS BEEN SAID TO YOU, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS DOUBT OR WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS A RATIONAL DOUBT THAT ARISES FROM THE EVIDENCE OR FROM THE LACK OF EVIDENCE. IT'S NOT SOME MYSTICAL MATTER. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU
HAVE TO CONJURE UP, BECAUSE IN THIS CASE THERE'S NOT ANY NEED TO CONJURE UP ANY KIND OF DOUBT. THE DOUBT ARISES FROM THE VERY WITNESSES THAT COMMONWEALTH CALLED TO TESTIFY BEFORE YOU. HIS HONOR WILL TELL YOU WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A MYRIAD OF DOUBTS, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A QUANTITY OF DOUBTS, BUT JUST ONE REASONABLE DOUBT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE THAT YOUR FUNCTION IS TO DETERMINE THE INNOCENCE OR GUILT OF MR, GLADDEN, I SUGGEST TO YOU THAT THAT IS A MISSTATEMENT. YOUR FUNCTION IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER REASONABLE DOUBT EXISTS. IF REASONABLE DOUBT EXISTS, YOU HAVE BUT ONE PARTICULAR FUNCTION, AND THAT IS TO 1 ACQUIT, IF NO REASONABLE DOUBT EXISTS, YOU 1 MUST DO OTHERWISE, SO HOW DO YOU DETERMINE REASONABLE DOUBT? YOU DETERMINE REASONABLE DOUBT, AS THE COURT WILL TELL YOU, FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT'S ADDUCED FROM THE WITNESS STAND. EVEN THOUGH WE SUGGEST TO YOU THAT YOU MUST COME IN HERE AND UTILIZE YOUR COMMON SENSE, SOMEHOW IT'S IRONIC, BECAUSE WE TELL YOU TO TAKE YOUR EVERYDAY EXPERIENCE,
BRING IT INTO THE COURTROOM, TEST IT AGAINST A PARTICULAR WITNESS THAT TAKES THE STAND, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND WE SAY, YOU'RE ISOLATED, DON'T LET ANYTHING INFLUENCE YOU AND JUST REVIEW THE EVIDENCE. SO IF YOU WILL FOR A FEW MOMENTS, LET US DETERMINE WHETHER REASONABLE DOUBT EXISTS. SUGGEST TO YOU AS YOU'RE IN THE JURY DELIBERATION ROOM, YOU START OFF WITH THE I 1 PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, AND AS YOU GO ALONG REVIEWING THE EVIDENCE, YOU DETERMINE WHAT REASONABLE DOUBT HAS BEEN ELICITED AND HAS COME FORWARD. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU'RE NOT SHERLOCK HOLMESES, YOU'RE NOT HERE TO PUT TOGETHER A CASE THAT THE COMMONWEALTH HAS FAILED TO PUT TOGETHER. THAT'S THEIR 1 PARTICULAR FUNCTION. AND THE COMMONWEALTH WILL SUGGEST TO YOU THAT THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE THAT MAY CAUSE YOU TO COME TO A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION. AND HE MAY EVEN GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE VERSUS DIRECT EVIDENCE. AND THE COURT IS GOING TO DEFINE FOR YOU BOTH THOSE TWO CONCEPTS.
AND IN DETERMINING WHAT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS, THERE'S USUALLY AN EXAMPLE GIVEN, AND THAT EXAMPLE THAT'S USUALLY GIVEN IS THAT IF YOU WERE TO GO OUT ONE PARTICULAR EVENING AND YOU DECIDE TO GO INTO THE MOVIE THEATER, AND AS YOU'RE GOING INTO THE MOVIE THEATER, JUST HAPPENS TO BE A VERY NICE EVENING, NO CLOUDS, MOON IS OUT, YOU'RE IN THE THEATER FOR A COUPLE OF HOURS AND YOU COME OUT. AND AS YOU 1 LOOK AROUND, YOU SEE PUDDLES OF WATER, SEE LEAVES ON THE TREES DRIPPING WITH WATER, YOU SEE A PERSON WITH AN UMBRELLA. WHILE YOU'RE IN THE THEATER YOU COULDN'T SEE IT WAS RAINING, YOU DIDN'T HEAR IT WAS RAINING, BUT WHEN YOU WENT OUTSIDE, WHEN YOU SAW WHAT YOU SAW, YOU CAME TO THE CONCLUSION IT MUST HAVE BEEN RAINING. BUT IN ORDER TO COME 1 TO THE DETERMINATION THAT IT WAS RAINING, THE FACTS THAT CREATE THAT INFERENCE MUST BE PROVEN. AND THAT IS, THAT WITHOUT THE WATER AND PUDDLES, YOU CAN'T COME TO THE CONCLUSION IT WAS RAINING. WITHOUT THE TREES DRIPPING WITH WATER, YOU CAN'T COME TO THE CONCLUSION IT WAS RAINING. WITHOUT THE UMBRELLAS UP, YOU
CAN'T COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS RAINING. ALL OF THOSE FACTORS MUST BE MET BEFORE YOU COME TO ANY KIND OF DETERMINATION AS AN INFERENCE THAT THE COMMONWEALTH INTENDS TO ESTABLISH. I BRING THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION BECAUSE DURING THE COURSE OF THE COMMONWEALTH'S ARGUMENT TO YOU HE WILL REFER TO WHAT HE CLAIMS WAS THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE REGARDING WHAT HAPPENED ON THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT BACK IN. LET US FOR THE MOMENT REVIEW THE TESTIMONY THAT THE COMMONWEALTH HAS PRESENTED TO YOU IN IT'S ATTEMPT TO PROVE GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. MUCH HAS BEEN TOUCHED UPON BY EMINENT 1 COUNSEL. MUCH OF IT COMES ABOUT AS A RESULT OF WHAT THE WITNESSES SAID OR DID NOT SAY. IN 1 TERMS OF THE FIRST WITNESS, STAR, OR LENA LAWS, THAT THE COMMONWEALTH PRESENTED, THE COURT WILL TELL YOU, NOT ONLY AS TO HER BUT ANY PARTICULAR WITNESS WHO TAKES THE STAND, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DETERMINE CREDIBILITY. DOES WHAT SHE SAYS ON THE STAND HAVE THE RING OF TRUTH? THERE ANY BIAS IN THE TESTIMONY THAT CAN BE IS
DETECTED? IS IS THERE ANY REASON OR MOTIVATION AS TO HER TESTIMONY, HER DEMEANOR ON THE STAND, WHAT SHE SAID ORIGINALLY WHEN FIRST QUESTIONED, WHAT SHE SAYS AT THE TIME OF TRIAL, THE INCONSISTENCIES, THE CONTRADICTIONS, THAT IS, FROM HER OWN TESTIMONY FROM ONE OCCASION AND HER INFORMATION TO THE POLICE ON OTHER OCCASIONS? CREDIBILITY IS THE CORNERSTONE AS TO WHAT OCCURRED ON THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT. I SUGGEST TO YOU THAT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT CREDIBILITY, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BELIEVABILITY, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RELIABILITY. THE TESTIMONY OF LENA LAWS? CAN YOU RELY UPON IT'S NOT PLEASANT 1 1 TO COME HERE AND MAKE INQUIRY OF A WOMAN THAT, PERHAPS, HAS HAD SOME DIFFICULTY IN SPEECH. BUT IN EVALUATING HER TESTIMONY YOU PUT ASIDE ANY KIND OF EMPATHY OR SYMPATHY BECAUSE THAT'S NOT A BASIS UPON WHICH TO MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO THE CREDIBILITY, BUT RATHER WHAT SHE SAID AND WHAT CAUSED HER TO SAY IT. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE HER FROM THE WORDS THAT SHE SAID. YOU NOW KNOW THAT SHE WAS A PERSON THAT WAS INFLUENCED BY COCAINE, DRIVEN BY COCAINE,
0 LIVED WITH COCAINE FOR A LENGTHY PERIOD OF TIME, SHE WAS IN THE HOUSE WHERE THE DECEASED WAS A COCAINE USER, SO SHE WAS IN THE LIFE OF COCAINE, THAT THERE WERE PEOPLE SUCH AS OMAR, DENISE, WHO WERE THERE ON THAT PARTICULAR OCCASION, I SUGGEST TO YOU, FOR A CRACK TYPE OF EXPERIENCE. AND AS MR. MOORE SAYS, WHEN YOU ARE YOUR SPEAKING ABOUT A DRUG-ABUSED INDIVIDUAL, A PERSON WHO USES DRUGS, AN ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE, AN ILLICIT SUBSTANCE, A SUBSTANCE THAT IS ABSOLUTELY DETRIMENTAL TO THE WELL-BEING, WELFARE OF THE INDIVIDUAL, THAT AFFECTS MIND AND HEART AND BODY, PERCEPTION, THINKING, BELIEVABILITY, RELIABILITY. IT'S NOT JUST, AS 1 THE COMMONWEALTH SUGGESTED TO YOU, THAT, WELL, SHE MAY HAVE BEEN USING DRUGS, BUT DON'T 1 CONSIDER IT TOO MUCH. SORT OF AN APOLOGY FOR THE USE OF DRUGS BY THAT INDIVIDUAL. THE QUESTION THAT YOU HAVE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IS ON THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT DID SHE PERCEIVE WHAT REALLY OCCURRED, DID SHE REALLY SEE WHAT SHE SAW, OR DID SHE SAY SHE SAW WHAT SHE SAW AND BELIEVE WHAT SHE SAW BECAUSE OF THE
1 INFLUENCE OF THAT PARTICULAR DRUG, AND MORE SO, HER RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DECEASED, PERSON WHOM SHE HAD LOVED. ALL OF THESE ARE FACTORS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION. AND AS MR. MOORE SAID, AND HOPEFULLY, THAT WHICH I AM REPEATING MAY BE A REDUNDANCY, BUT I HOPE IT IS REWARDING TO YOU, MISS LAWS, IN TERMS OF HER RELIABILITY, WHEN YOU SCRUTINIZE IT, WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT WITH A KEEN EYE, HER TESTIMONY IS COMPLETELY INCONSISTENT, ONE THAT CANNOT RATIONALLY BE EXPLAINED. SHE SAYS SHE WAS IN THAT PARTICULAR ESTABLISHMENT 1 THAT NIGHT, AND THAT THREE INDIVIDUALS AT SOME POINT IN TIME CAME IN, AND THAT THERE WAS A DISCOURSE BETWEEN THE DECEASED AND ONE MEMBER WHO ENTERED THAT PARTICULAR ESTABLISHMENT. AND 1 THEN SHE SAID THAT SHE SAW A SHOTGUN, AND SHE SAW THE SHOTGUN AT SOME POINT IN TIME BEING PLACED IN THE AIR, AND THAT AT SOME POINT SHE SAW THE SHOTGUN AT LEAST WITH SOME SPARK COMING FROM IT. THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL TESTIMONY AND HER ORIGINAL STATEMENT TO THE POLICE. SHE COMES HERE UNDER OATH. AS MR, MOORE