The process involved as being part of the prosecuting attorney team was one which included a lot of time, thought, preparation and hard work. One needed to thoroughly prepare an opening statement that summarized the evidence in a concise way which presented the theme of racism. Not only did it present the theme of racism, but it also included a short overview of the case in order to orient the jurors to aid their understanding of the facts that followed. It included an organization of important points that the prosecution wanted to make and then concluded with a statement asking the jury to consider only the evidence with finding favor upon the prosecution. In addition, there was development of questions we used to directly examine our witnesses. These questions had to support our theory of Twain being a racist. Also, these questions were reviewed with our witnesses in order that they were thoroughly familiar with their witness statements so that their testimony would not be inconsistent. These were not leading questions. In order to cross examine the defense witnesses we developed some questions based upon research of their characters as to how the defense might present their case. During the defense presentation we had to be actively listening and thinking about how we could suggest that the testimony of the defense witnesses was inconsistent. In other words, we tried to tear apart their defense and make them look less credible. Finally, we put together our closing statement which had to be somewhat flexible based upon what information was presented. This closing argument reviewed our side of the case as well as tried to point out the inconsistencies in the defense which were brought forth during the trial.
Overall, it was felt that our preparation, presentation, and questioning went well. However, if only there was a better way to “get into the jurors’ ” head or emphasize the fact that they were only to consider the evidence and not utilize their preconceived notions, thoughts and prejudices it would have been most helpful. Also, it would have benefited the prosecution if the class had not discussed the week prior to this trial how Mark Twain was not racist. Not only did the latter help in the preparation for the defense, but these arguments or ideas were fresh in the minds of the jurors which probably gave them some bias in their decision. It appeared that not only did the jurors have preconceived ideas, but they didn’t want to fully listen to the case or evidence that was presented. The jurors were only referring to the book, and not the evidence that was presented. It was as if we were living out the book, To Kill A Mockingbird. The jury had made their decision before the case was ever heard.
The verdict came as a surprise especially after all the hard work undertaken to support our case for racism. Thus, it was somewhat disappointing. However, it was very challenging to play the role of the prosecution despite my own beliefs that I felt Mark Twain really wasn’t a racist based upon my research. It made me think about how real life defense attorneys must feel to defend cases in which they truly know or feel that the person is guilty. This raises questions about morality and doing what is right and just. Is our legal system/structure appropriate? Also, if effective counsel is not present this can determine the outcome for defendants which may adversarial. Is it even ethical for attorneys to play the numbers game and prosecute if they think they can convict?
