Case Highlight: This transcript captures the closing argument in a real world criminal case where our client faced felony murder, involuntary manslaughter, and felony hit and run charges after a chaotic Fourth of July encounter left a stranger fatally injured. What began as a simple offer to give a ride home quickly spiraled into a violent confrontation, one our client never sought and did everything he could to avoid. We focused on the facts that mattered most: the decedent's extreme intoxication and unprovoked aggression, the absence of any malice in our client's actions at every turn, and the medical reality that these injuries may have been unsurvivable regardless. Every point highlighted that our client acted not with hatred or cruelty, but with the imperfect humanity of someone thrust into the worst moment of his life.

​

Before I begin my remarks, I did want to take a moment to thank you for your service. I know Judge (name omitted) had mentioned at the beginning that jury trials have been around for a long time, hundreds of years, long before even the founding of our country. They're literally part of the fabric of our country. It's in the founding documents, the US Constitution, the Virginia Constitution. But no matter how old and no matter how important rights are, they're just words on a piece of paper, unless people like you give your time and show up to do your civic duty. And you gave time away from family obligations and your work obligations. And I just wanted to let you know that it is sincerely appreciated. I know that's shared by everybody in the courtroom. We've obviously been waiting a long time to get to today. Everybody has been. (The defendant) has been waiting three and a half years to find out if he might be convicted of extraordinarily serious charges that in no way, shape, or form reflect what occurred that night.

​

Let me just say this was a horrible tragedy. There is no question about that. (The decedent) deserves sympathy. Nobody is here to diminish his memory or denigrate him in any way. His family's grief is very real and profound. I think sometimes, when there is a horrible event and a horrible tragedy, and the death of somebody who's only 40 years old, there might be a natural tendency to think we can bring some balance to the universe by blaming somebody, and that's going to solve something. Let me just tell you, there is no honor, there's no justice, there's no redemption in ignoring the facts, ignoring the law, and convicting a man of crimes that he didn't commit.

​

They called him a murderer for what occurred that night. There's three offenses before you. Let's start with the felony murder. They have to prove numerous aspects, and if they fail to prove even one of them, you cannot convict him of felony murder. Let's first discuss malice. The prosecution just now showed you the jury instruction and said, "You know what? Actually, just ignore all the language in the jury instruction. Ignore any common sense definition of malice. This isn't malice as we all know it." It's a word that we all know, it has a common definition. It's not anger, it's not hatred, it's not revenge, it's not cruelty or resentment towards a person. It's none of that. Cast aside all the language in the very jury instruction defining malice. Of course, that's what malice is, by any common sense definition or legal definition. It is actions motivated by anger, hatred, revenge, contempt, resentment, cruelty. The very words that appear in that jury instruction. And so the question for you is whether (the defendant's) actions reflect a malicious mindset. It is a state of mind, that's correct. You have to prove that he had malice in his heart that night. And at every turn, not only do his actions not reflect malice, they reflect the very opposite of malice, and we need to retrace them.

​

We can't retrace them from the cold comfort of a courtroom three and a half years after the event. Because it's a state of mind, to the best of your ability, you have to attempt to put yourself in his position as he was experiencing them in real time that night. And let's take this step by step. This started with (the defendant), the man that they repeatedly rolled their eyes at, pointed a finger at, and used scary air quotes about and painted as a monster. The man's a pediatric nurse at (a children's hospital). He devoted his entire adult professional life to taking care of sick and injured children. The monster that they point the finger at, like he's some subhuman. He went out for the Fourth of July like millions of Americans, had some beers, met up with friends, and went out to a bar. Once he's there, let's talk about what happens. (The decedent), and we'll talk a little bit more about his actions. But he's obviously extremely intoxicated. I know they glossed over that quite a bit, but he's extraordinarily intoxicated. He's almost three times the legal limit, just under. (A medical expert) testified he had somewhere in the ballpark of 11 to 22 drinks over the course of an hour. We know that not only is he extraordinarily intoxicated, he's extraordinarily belligerent, and that's reflected in high resolution on the video that is going back to you in evidence, and I would encourage you to watch it. It's a short video, and so you can watch it multiple times to make sure you can draw accurate conclusions from that video. But what it depicts is (the decedent) go after another patron at the bar, somebody who's got his hands in his pockets and never takes an aggressive posture, never takes his hands even out of his pockets. And he throws several blows at that individual. He then wrestles and shrugs off two bouncers before one of the bouncers delivers a sweeping blow to the back of his head.

​

All of this is unbeknownst to (the defendant), who's in the bar hanging out with people that night. So where do (the defendant's) actions start? He offers to give a ride to a co-worker he happened to encounter there, (his co-worker) and (the decedent), a total stranger to him. So where does this begin? With an act of anger, hatred, revenge? No, it's the simple action of a pediatric nurse offering to do somebody a solid, including a stranger that he never met before. In no way, shape, or form is there malice reflected in that moment, and it makes absolutely zero sense. What is his next action? He pulls around, and (his co-worker) and (the decedent) get into the vehicle. And we know that they didn't even make it a mile down the road before (the decedent's) belligerent behavior continued. And again, I'm not here to say he's a bad man at all. We all have multiple faces, different sides of us, and unfortunately, he was having a very rough night. But there is no reason to doubt the version of events that (the defendant) testified to. Which is he was inexplicably angry. He's screaming at me, demanding for me to turn down my music, using profanity, and he struck me in the head multiple times. So how do we know that's true? It aligns perfectly with all of the evidence. We know 15 minutes prior, that (the decedent) had been fighting at the bar. We know that he was extraordinarily intoxicated. This is not a defense invention. This is all cold, hard evidence. And we know that (the defendant's) ear had significant bruising to it, and we know they didn't even make it a mile up the road before they pulled over. So it all perfectly aligns.

​

Now there is zero evidence to suggest that at that point, even after being struck in the head, that he takes a combative posture towards (the decedent). And it's common sense that he wouldn't. He's not a fighter, he's not a soldier. He's a pediatric nurse who in the span of minutes went from relaxing on the Fourth of July to having the most stressful, worst moment, worst encounter of his life, with adrenaline coursing through his body as he's struggling to keep his car on the road. So at that point, is he exhibiting malice towards (the decedent)? The person striking him in the head repeatedly, inexplicably, in a drunken rage. No, he simply pulls over and requests, very reasonably, that he exit his vehicle. He then proceeds onto (a nearby road). And I ask that you take a moment to reflect on this. At that moment, he has no legal obligation, he has no moral obligation whatsoever, to (the decedent). There is no man, no woman, who has an obligation to remain in a vehicle and subject themselves to being struck repeatedly by a stranger, a drunken stranger in their car. He had every right to leave him on the side of the road right then and there and go about his business. But what did he do? He goes a few miles up the road and turns around after (his co-worker), in conversation with him, says, we shouldn't leave him there. That is the exact opposite of malice. He is going back to check on the status of the man who just attacked him, somebody who he has zero obligation to. To see if this guy maybe can calm down and I can help him out, because we don't want to leave him stranded, drunken on (a nearby road) at 2:00 AM.

​

As he pulls back into that lot, he asks, are you calmed down, bro? Can you get back into the car? And he's immediately met with (the decedent) charging at his vehicle with a closed fist. And (the decedent) swings at him through the window. And in that moment, total chaos in the dark at 2:00 AM after a full day of revelry and drinking, that's when the tragic impact occurs. (The decedent) goes to the ground and ultimately suffers fatal injuries. (The defendant) doesn't take off. He circles around. He and (his co-worker) get out of the vehicle. And he is a nurse, and there's been a lot made of this idea that he should have immediately diagnosed this situation. Right then and there, 2:00 AM in the pitch black after you've been struck in the head, with your ears ringing, adrenaline coursing through your body, you should have diagnosed the whole situation right then and there. You knew what was going on. That contradicts completely their own medical experts. The fatal injuries in this case are not the leg injuries, they are the head injuries. Subdural hematoma, brain swelling that tragically ultimately killed (the decedent). And what do we know about those? They are invisible to the naked eye. No human being can look at another person and immediately diagnose closed head injuries, that is preposterous. (The neurosurgeon) told you as much. He's a neurosurgeon. He wouldn't diagnose a subdural hematoma and brain swelling without the benefit of CT scans or MRI scans.

​

Okay, so there's a phrase that describes the kind of argument that the government is engaging in, in this case, and that is Monday morning quarterbacking. Which is the idea that the day after the big game, when you've been able to view all the replays in the cold comfort of sitting on your couch, you can say, Oh, why did the quarterback throw that interception? He threw it right to him. Well, it's real easy to say in a courtroom three and a half years later, with thousands of pages of medical documents to pour over, CT scans, and neurosurgeons, and ER doctors to all tell you this is what the situation was. That is not the situation this man was in. He's got his ears ringing. Was just attacked. He's had a bunch of beer himself, he's standing on the side of the road. There is absolutely nothing to indicate he should have reasonably diagnosed the extent of (the decedent's) head injuries, or that he had head injuries at all. He saw the most obvious injury, which was the leg injury. He made an attempt to attend to that injury. Now, with the benefit of hindsight, would he have done things differently? Of course he would have, and (the defendant) told you as much, and he told the detective as much. If I had known how grievously injured this man was, I would have called 911, and he's expressed regret, and he did it repeatedly, both in the interview and on the stand. I wish I could have done things differently. I should have done things differently. I could have done better.

​

That's regret, not malice. Malicious people, bad people, they don't have regrets. They're narcissists. The only thing they care about is themselves. This is a man who was grappling in real time with the worst moment of his life, and he was doing the best that he could. Did he panic? Sure. Did he handle it perfectly? No. But imperfection is not malice. I doubt any single one of us, I know I can't, and I doubt any of you could look in the mirror and honestly tell yourselves you handled all the most stressful situations of your life with total grace, with perfection. We are all human beings. We are all imperfect. None of us can sit here and say we would have immediately diagnosed a subdural hematoma and brain swelling that might prove fatal and act perfectly. He didn't leave him on the side of the road. He wrapped the injury, he loaded him into his vehicle. There is absolutely no coherent way to frame that as malicious behavior. Can you describe it as imperfect? Could you describe it as maybe he could have done better? Okay, that's fine, and I accept that. But to say that proves malice, anger, hatred, revenge, cruelty? Absolutely not. And it demonstrates the very opposite.

​

So (the defendant), at that point, drives out to the (nearby area) where (his co-worker) lives, and you hear that there's the interaction with the police officer around 2:43 AM. And this is where they've started this 58 minute clock that's become a talking point for them. That doesn't again reflect reality and the facts of the case. Okay, 2:43 AM is when there's the interaction with the officer. (The defendant) does not say he hears the abnormal or agonal breathing at that point. He said that occurred sometime later. I think he said his best estimate was maybe 5 to 10 minutes later, which is consistent with the GPS data, which shows the vehicle still in (that area) at 2:50 AM. And (the defendant) told you that at some point, then I hear the agonal breathing, and I realize there is something wrong, this is something bad. And at that point, they drive in the direction of (a nearby hospital). It does appear he gets on the highway and they go past (that hospital). And I will grant all the evidence shows there is a delay at that point, something along the lines of 15-20 minutes. And if you look at the phone records, what (the defendant) is doing throughout that timeframe, consistent with his testimony is he called (a physician acquaintance) six times before she picked up, and he also attempted to call her husband once, he is an ER doctor.

​

Now the Commonwealth has framed that as completely unreasonable and somehow self-serving behavior on his part. Why in the world would he do that? And how pointless is that? I beg to differ. This is a man in real time grappling with the worst experience of his life, trying to navigate this, and I don't find it unreasonable that he would call two physicians that he happens to know. They have painted him as a medical expert of the highest degree. He is a nurse, and I have tremendous respect for nurses. They do thankless work, they do not get nearly enough credit for the work that they do. I mean, I attribute the life of my son to the good work that a nurse did. They're good people. They are trained professionals. They are not physicians. And like all nurses, he reports to physicians, and physicians give him orders. And so the idea that a trained nurse would reach out to physicians for advice and guidance does not strike me as bizarre. In hindsight. Do we all wish we could rewind the clock, and he called 911, or they went in a straight line to (that hospital)? Everybody wishes that, nobody more than (the defendant). He didn't go out looking to carry this on his conscience for the rest of his life.

Let's talk about his next actions. They do go to (that hospital). And this idea that it wasn't a level one trauma center, and therefore this was reckless and malicious, that is absurd. He took him to the first hospital available, a hospital that he was most acquainted with, a hospital where he knew staff members and physicians. There's nothing illogical about that. They have a helicopter pad there to airlift people to other facilities as well. And he remains on scene, not only at (that hospital), he actually travels to (the regional trauma center) when (the decedent) is transferred there. Again, does any of that in any way, shape, or form coherently reflect anger, hatred, revenge, malice? It does not. Human imperfection, not handling the situation the way you might want to if you could run it back. That's fine. Malice, absolutely not and absolutely nowhere close.

​

The Commonwealth also made a lot of, and I don't disagree with the notion that, yes, if a person has possible brain injuries, if they're getting hypoxic, you want to get them intubated. You want to make sure they have an oxygen supply, and their argument is because he was potentially deprived of access to that treatment by (the defendant), he's malicious. I would just say, and I've got nothing against (the treating physician). Seemed like a fine man, good professional, doing good work. But what did (the treating physician) tell you? He told you that even after he arrived at the hospital, and I hope you were paying close attention to it, it took at least 30 minutes, potentially 40 minutes, for them to intubate him. So does that mean (the treating physician) is a horrible person, or he committed medical malpractice? I'm not saying that. It's a perfect reflection of, this is a chaotic situation. Everybody, all the medical professionals, are navigating it in real time, trying to come up with the best course of action to treat this man. They're not all perfect human beings. They're doing the best they can. Even a highly trained ER doctor. And you saw his demeanor, it appeared to me, he was pretty shaken up by the experience too. And (the treating physician) certainly hadn't been punched in the head or endured everything that preceded all this. All right, but with respect to malice, they've come nowhere close. There is zero coherent theory for malice. It makes absolutely zero sense. So with respect to malice, that alone shuts down the felony murder, they have not proven it beyond a reasonable doubt. Not only have they not proven it beyond a reasonable doubt, it's come nowhere remotely close. And if anything, it's proven the opposite.

​

But there's a number of other aspects of felony murder that they're required to prove, and I'm going to go through those. There were a lot of fantasies of things that I might comment on, but I'll now actually offer my comments. Causation. They have to prove that (the defendant's) actions caused (the decedent's) death. Not only that, there's a separate instruction that says it has to be proven that (the defendant) killed him. But, those are pretty interrelated concepts. Let's be intellectually honest. I know everybody here takes this seriously. You're going to do it with integrity, and you're going to do it with intellectual honesty. Let's talk about the sequence of events here. They have poo pooed the notion that the bouncer with a full wind up, delivering a blow to the base of his skull, could have had anything to do with this situation. But that's contradicted by their own medical experts, who all agree unanimously, a blow of that nature can cause a skull fracture. It can cause a subdural hematoma, it can cause brain swelling. I'd ask you to also look very carefully at that video. I'm not going to tell you definitively that the bouncer didn't just have a bare fist. It's possible. If you look at the nature of his wind up, it would seem inconsistent to me with the kind of way that you would deliver a blow with a bare fist. He's coming like this. I'd ask that you watch the video carefully. It does appear to me, and obviously my opinion and interpretation is not binding on you. That's why you're here, to make your own determinations. It looked to me like there's a reflection in his hand at some point, but I'm not going to tell you he definitely had something in his hand. I think it's possible. But when he strikes (the decedent), he strikes him with enough force that (the decedent) immediately drops to the ground. You're also going to have the medical examiner's report. The medical examiner's report includes some bystander statements indicating that he also struck his head on a support pillar when he went to the ground. So at that point, there is the distinct possibility that (the decedent) has already sustained a head injury of some sort. I'm not going to pretend that I can give you any certainty as to that, and nobody could, including the medical experts who agree we can't. Because obviously we can't go back in time and do a CT scan immediately after he was hit in the head by the bouncer. But the idea that it just absolutely definitively played no role, that is not intellectually honest, and that's not supported by the facts or the medical evidence, I'm sorry.

​

So from there, within 15-20 minutes, he suffers another significant head injury. It blew my mind that they have asked you to totally disregard their own medical examiner's conclusions. The medical examiner is responsible for establishing cause and manner of death. The cause of death, this is not a defense invention. It's right there in black and white, multiple blunt force injuries with alcohol contributing. And she explains in the report very clearly, very unambiguously, the role that alcohol played here. Not only did it make (the decedent) less able to brace his fall, it also potentially affected the brain injuries. Within the medical examiner's report, she states, and yes, I agree, please read it. That an individual who is highly intoxicated is more susceptible to subdural hematoma, to the point that even minor trauma, even a small fall can cause subdural hematoma. She also opines within her report that extreme intoxication can increase brain swelling. And their attempt to wave a magic wand to undo their own medical examiner's testimony and written report. And to say, ignore all that, because there was a test suggesting that coagulation was fine, and so therefore his clotting was normal. So ignore the medical examiner's own findings that he was much more susceptible to subdural hematoma and brain swelling.

​

This is the reality of the situation. This was a perfect storm of events. It was a man who was extremely drunk, who had been hit in the head violently at a bar earlier, who then, shortly thereafter, suffered an additional head injury. And it was that combination of events that tragically killed him. Their argument is sometimes what we call a "but for" argument. Their argument, in a nutshell, is but for (the defendant) not getting him immediately to the hospital, he might have survived. The problem with that argument is it ignores so many other variables that played into this situation and so many other "but fors." And so let's really be honest here. But for (the decedent) drinking to the point that he was three times the legal limit in public, this wouldn't have happened. But for (the decedent) getting into a bar fight and getting smashed over the head, this likely would not have occurred. But for (the decedent) attacking a stranger who was trying to do him a solid, this likely would not have occurred. But for (the decedent) charging at that person with a closed fist and punching him when that person returned a second time to try to help him, this wouldn't have happened. And what the government is asking you to do is to say, You know what? Cast all that aside, sweep that all under the rug. It's all (the defendant's) fault. It all falls at his feet. He's the only one who should be blamed here. It's not fair. It's not intellectually honest. It's not supported by the law. It's not supported in facts, and it's not supported by commonsense.

​

So at this point, they haven't proven malice beyond a reasonable doubt. They haven't proven that (the defendant) killed or caused (the decedent's) death beyond a reasonable doubt. So the other aspect of felony murder that they have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, is the hit and run. We're all familiar with the concept of hit and run. And I know that the legal elements might be a little different than what you know it as. There's two components to hit and run. Did the hitting occur? Of course, there was an accident. (The defendant) was involved. He knew a man was injured. I'm not disputing any of that. There's no running here. He didn't take off from the scene. He stayed at the scene, he loaded (the decedent) into his vehicle. He ultimately took him to a hospital. And whether you believe that's an imperfect rescue or not, there was no running involved. He didn't try to evade responsibility. That's what a hit and run is. Hit and run is the car that hits you, and they take off because they want to get away from responsibility. That's not what happened here. And this idea that he didn't forthwith provide his information, I don't frankly know what the prosecution is talking about. Not only did he go to the hospital, provided his name, provided all of his contact information, he allowed them to photograph his car. He provided a statement, albeit a false one. And we're not sugarcoating that at all. He lied and it was wrong. It was wrong multiple times over, and he knows it was, and he's embarrassed. He's humiliated by it, and he should be. It doesn't make him malicious. It doesn't mean that he caused (the decedent's) death. I'm not making excuses for it, and panic is not an excuse, he did the wrong thing. But I think in that interview, you see where the shift occurs. There's almost a clean demarcation where his body language changes, his tone of voice changes when he starts telling the truth. So they've failed. They have to prove every single one of those things I've just said beyond a reasonable doubt for felony murder. They haven't proven one. They haven't proven malice. They haven't proven causation. They haven't proven the hit and run. They haven't proven any single aspect of it, not even close. All right, so he's not guilty of the murder. He is not a murderer. He's a pediatric nurse in real time, navigating the worst situation of his life, trying to help a perfect stranger. And he wasn't perfect, but he did the best he could. That's not anger, that's hatred, that's not revenge, and it's not close.

​

So I have already discussed the felony hit and run in the context of the felony murder, so I'm not going to go back through all that. I think all of you understand my arguments with respect to the hit and run. The last remaining charge is called involuntary manslaughter, and that has some overlap with felony murder, but they are subtly different. Because instead of proving malice, you have to prove callous disregard for human life. Those are sort of the buzzwords that you see throughout. There's two separate involuntary manslaughter instructions. There's one with the elements, and then there's a separate one that starts with some weird language that says the gist of manslaughter. And I'd ask that you read both, because they both tell you very clearly what is required is callous disregard for human life. That is the mindset they are required to prove that (the defendant) had that night.

​

Let's just break those two words down. What is callous? Cold, uncaring, hard hearted. What's disregard? Don't care, indifferent. So you put them together, they're saying that with a hard heart, just with cold ruthlessness, he didn't care if this man lived or died. That's what callous disregard is, and that's not what this evidence shows. It doesn't show it at all. How do we know that? I don't think there's any better insight into his state of mind than the interview with the detective, and the conversation with his mom that's captured on video. And of course, you heard him testify today as well. And you're the finders of fact, and you'll get a jury instruction that says you get to determine all matters of credibility, and so it is completely on you to assess (the defendant's) credibility. From my point of view, he presented as credible. He's a man who's devastated by what occurred, and that's consistent with the behavior you saw in that interrogation room. What are some the things you heard? He said "I feel fucking terrible." "This is awful." He said that "I will pray for that man."

​

And so for them to say, to use scare quotes and roll their eyes and point the finger at this man repeatedly, and say he's some sort of a monster. That's not supported by reality, and it's profoundly unfair. He's a good man caught in a situation not of his own choosing and he didn't react perfectly. That's what this is. That's not callous disregard. It's not cold heartedness. It's not hard heartedness. It's not not caring whether a man lives or dies. And all of the evidence demonstrates the opposite.

​

He wishes for nothing more than the ability to go back in time and to take actions that could have saved this man. But that's another unfortunate aspect of this, and it's relevant towards both the felony murder and the involuntary manslaughter. The reality is there is a very good chance that no matter what (the defendant) had done that night, that the dye was cast the moment that (the decedent) went to the ground. And that is another thing that they've ignored. Their own medical experts testified, I think the exact question I used was, could you with any degree of medical certainty, testify that he would have survived even if he had been teleported to the hospital. And, of course, they said no, and everybody agreed unanimously across the board, that these were catastrophic head injuries. I think it was (the treating physician), and possibly it was (the neurosurgeon), or both, there's an assessment tool that they use to give a scale. The Glasgow Coma Scale, and the lower the score, the more profound the injuries that have been suffered. And he was a three out of a 15. He had already suffered profound and catastrophic injuries. And the simple reality is that no matter what had been done, there is a strong probability that nothing would have changed this outcome as much as we would all want that.

​

I think now is a good time for me to talk about beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the burden that the government has in this case, and that's the burden for every single one of these elements that we've been discussing. So whether it's malice, whether it's callous disregard, whether it's causation of death. They're required to prove all of them beyond a reasonable doubt. You get a jury instruction that gives you some definition of what that requires. It will tell you that a probability is not enough, a suspicion, no matter how strong, is not enough. So even if you get back into the deliberation room and you're discussing this amongst one another, and you were to conclude, I think he probably had malice, anger, hatred and revenge directed at (the decedent), that wouldn't be sufficient. Even if you found I strongly suspect that he had anger, hatred, revenge on the mind, that would be insufficient. They've come nowhere close. But even that would be insufficient. There's another way that I conceptualize beyond a reasonable doubt, just that I find helpful, which is it's the highest burden that exists in the U.S. legal system, period. You could go into a federal court, state court, (anywhere in this country). The burden that's before you right now, the one that the government has is the highest burden that exists in this country. It is the platinum standard of evidence. These courts don't always host criminal cases. Sometimes you have disputes over money, or disputes over property, or custody of a child. The burden they have today is higher than the burden required to take your money from you, your property from you, your children from you. And the reason the burden in a criminal case is so extraordinarily high is because the stakes are so extraordinarily high. I'm not exaggerating when I say this is the most important day of this man's life. We don't guess people into criminal convictions in this country. We don't take away liberty and freedom without overwhelming evidence that leaves you in a state of near certainty. And with the elements of malice, causation, they've come nowhere close to that standard.

​

I've probably talked too long already, and I apologize for that if you're getting sick of listening to me. It's a painful part of the case for me, because momentarily, when I sit down, that's it, I'm done. It's the last time that I have to talk to you and comment on the evidence at all. And I take my obligation to (the defendant) seriously, and I know that when I sit down, because it happens to me invariably, no matter what the case is, I immediately think to myself, you could have made the argument better, or you missed an important point. And then they get up, and I want to make counter arguments and counter-points, but I can't do that. I have to sit down, and I have to be stoic, you have to be professional, and I'm going to do that. But I do want to say that just because they get up and say it last doesn't make it so. The government doesn't get the final word in this case. I certainly don't get the final word. The final word comes from you in the form of your verdict. When you go back there, all 12 of you that are back there have to come to a unanimous verdict. There has to be unanimous agreement. But what that really means to me is that there's no hiding behind somebody else's opinion, everybody needs to contribute. Everybody needs to give your opinion on what has been presented. And every one of you ultimately is individually responsible for the outcome of this case. Every single one of you not only can but has an obligation to stand up and to say, I will not be a party to cutting corners. I will not diminish what beyond reasonable doubt requires. I will not reinvent malice into the fashion that they urge me to when it is completely the opposite of the jury instruction as written. I won't ignore the plain language of the medical examiner's report. Even in a highly emotional situation where a family is rightly devastated, I will give a man a fair trial. I will make a decision based on facts, law, and evidence, and I will do the job that I swore to do.

​

And it's a tough case, and it's tough because nobody can walk out of here feeling good. You can't run back the clock. This can't be undone. Their grief can't be undone, the tragedy can't be undone. So nobody's walking away with happiness out of this situation. But you can walk out of here with a sense of pride and holding your head held high when you return verdicts of not guilty, because by returning that verdict, most significantly, you'll have done the job that you swore to do when you raised your right hand. It is the only appropriate verdict on what has been presented to you, and you'll have proven that a man can get a fair trial, even under very difficult, very emotional circumstances. (The defendant) isn't a murderer. He's a good man caught in a horrible situation not of his own choosing. And he wasn't perfect, but he did the best he could. But he's not guilty of every single charge that's been put before you. I thank you for your time. I thank you for your attention. I thank you for your jury service.