Case Highlight: Self-Defense in Action. This transcript captures the closing argument in a real-world criminal case where an 18-year-old faced unlawful wounding and stabbing in the commission of a felony after a violent confrontation with a much larger, intoxicated adult. What started as a routine day at the beach quickly spiraled into chaos, leaving our client trapped in a car and forced to defend himself. We focused on the facts that mattered most: the adult’s reckless behavior, the serious risk to our client, and Virginia’s self-defense laws. Every point highlighted that he acted reasonably under extreme circumstances. The jury agreed, returning a not guilty verdict.

 

Before I make my remarks, let me at least take a moment to thank you. I think we may have said something during the jury selection, but from my perspective, the right to a trial by jury is something sacred in this country. I mean, it's in the founding documents of our country. That's how important the Founders thought it was. The simple truth is, it's just empty words on a piece of paper unless people like you show up to do your duty. And sometimes, I think as Americans, we take that for granted. In a place like Russia, China, if the government accuses you of doing something, charges you with a crime, good luck fighting back. But it is something exceptional about America, and it's something to be proud of. And it doesn't work without good people like you who show up to do jury duty. So, I give you my thanks. And I know [the defendant] and his family give you their genuine thanks because we've been waiting a long time for this day, both sides of the courtroom have.

​

And as you heard, this happened over a year ago. This young man, eighteen years old at the time, has been waiting over a year with this guillotine hanging over his head, waiting and wondering every day if he's going to be convicted of a very serious crime, potentially go to prison for an event that was completely beyond his control, something that he never wanted to have happen, went to go try to play football. Boys, eighteen years old, seventeen year old, sixteen year old wanted to go play football at the beach. Unfortunately, that's not the way it went down. Not because of their actions, because of that man's actions.

​

All right. So, the prosecution at the beginning of this case, and really at the beginning of any criminal case, they're making you a promise. They're promising you they have evidence that is so overwhelming, so consistent, so clear, so clean that at the end of hearing it, you will be left in a state of near certainty that an individual has committed the crime they've charged. We are at the time in the case where all of the evidence has come and it has gone and it has failed and it has failed spectacularly on every level. And I'm going to go through it step-by-step. But let's at least start with the notion that [the prosecutor] wasn't there. He had some very vivid fantasies of what may have occurred. I wasn't there either. None of you were there. So, what is the proper focus in a criminal case? Of course, it's on the facts and the evidence. You shouldn't blindly listen to his arguments. Certainly, shouldn't blindly listen to my arguments. Your job as a juror is to listen to all of the facts and all of the evidence, right? And, obviously, we have to start with, what are the facts? What are the evidence that we know before we even attempt to apply the law to those? So, let's start by talking about the facts.

​

Now, [the prosecutor], in his closing argument, almost like a magician said, don't consider anything relating to [the complaining witness]. This isn't about him. Oh, it most certainly is. I beg to differ. Because his actions brought all of this about. So, let's talk about the relevant facts, start to finish in this case.

Fact number one, as everybody has agreed, indisputably, this man was drunk. Not just drunk, stinking drunk. More than one-and-a-half times, closer to two times the legal limit, on a Monday, in the middle of the day, a day to pick up his children from daycare, go to the convenience store, or the Lowe's, and he's just drinking all day.

​

Fact number two, he's doing it with his children, a five year old and a two year old in his vehicle, in their car seats. The mental gymnastics that have been required for the government to say, set that all aside, he's done nothing wrong, it's mind-boggling. He endangered his children's lives. He endangered his own life. He endangered the live's of every other driver on that road. And they say, sweep that all under the rug. That's nothing for you to consider. That's an agreed fact.

​

Fact number three, his own driving behavior was clearly impaired by his own testimony. He testified, yeah, I overcorrected. Could have been because I was impaired. He's jeopardizing his own life, his children's lives. In the opening statements to say, it was a variation of, he was just spending quality time with his kids that day. Spending quality time with your children. I'm a father of four myself. It's an interesting notion that you would spend quality time with your children by pulling over to the side of the road, not for an air show, not into even a parking lot, just basically off to the side of the road by a ditch so I can chug scotch for an hour with my five year old and my two year old. What quality time. Wow.

​

So, what's the next fact? The fact is this man became enraged. Everybody can agree on that. And everybody can agree that was the origin of this entire incident. Not any actions by this young man, by that man. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. This idea that he's going to chase and hunt down people to instruct them on proper driving behavior, driving around at two times the legal limit with his kids in the car. Are you kidding me? And for them to justify that, that is an embarrassment.

​

Your responsibility is to consider all of the evidence. Not to put blinders on. Not to dismiss anything that doesn't fit their narrative of this. Your job is to consider all of the facts that led up to this. And the fact is, he was enraged. He chased them down. There's no doubt about that. He chased and stalked these boys, eighteen year old, seventeen year old, sixteen year old. Forty-one-year-old man, grown man chased them down, chases them down [street]. And you heard he had opportunities to turn around right across from the [neighborhood]. Could have turned around at [street]. After they turned left on [street], could have turned around. His kids in the car seat. This notion he was trying to get home with his kids, clearly not because he disregarded multiple opportunities to go home because in his enraged state, his enraged drunken state, he was determined to have a confrontation. So, he chases them into a condominium complex where he doesn't live, where he has no business being.

​

And the next fact is, as they pull into the condominium complex, they try to disengage from this drunken lunatic. The testimony was, and it hasn't been impeached in any way, that they pulled over to the right to allow him to pass, and he did, in fact, pass them. And at that point, they are hoping to go about their business, to park and go play some football. But what's the next fact that we know. Through every single witness, [the complaining witness] stops his vehicle. Stops it. Parks it for no reason in the middle of the street in a condominium complex where he doesn't live. There is absolutely no reason for him to do that other than he now wants to turn this into a physical confrontation.

​

What's the next fact that we know indisputable that every single witness agreed upon? Who got out of their vehicle? [the complaining witness]. Every single witness agreed on that fact. What did every single witness agree on? [The complaining witness] began to walk towards [the defendant's] vehicle. Every single witness across the board agreed upon that.

​

Now, yes, from that point there is some divergence in some of the witnesses' testimony. That is not unusual. It's a very quick, very stressful event. It's not unusual that an event that took a minute, maybe less, people would have slightly varying perspectives. I agree to that extent with [the prosecutor]. But even through all of that, there really hasn't been much inconsistency.

​

Now, of course, you heard through [the defendant's father], that [the defendant] said this drunken lunatic tried to drag me out of the vehicle, was punching me while I was seatbelted in. So, yes, I slashed him to get away from him. So, that's one of the witnesses. Second witness, [defense witness]. Now, as far as [the prosecutor] saying that [defense witness] is somehow an incredible witness that came across as very confused, that cross-examination blew my mind. I couldn't follow any of it. He kept repeating the same questions over and over again. Seemed very concerned about whether the car was green or gold. And, God forbid, [defense witness] hit a one-hitter of weed that morning. Of course, it's fine [complaining witness] is completely trashed driving around town. But, you know, God forbid, a kid take a one-hitter of weed, you can't believe anything else that maniac would say. It's reefer madness. Give me a break.

​

[Defense witness's] testimony was perfectly credible. It was perfectly consistent. He hung in there under an absolute bullying browbeating on cross-examination, and he told you what happened. And he told you what happened is [complaining witness] walked up to our vehicle, opened the door, and started whaling on [the defendant] and [the defendant] stabbed him. The other witnesses, even [the complaining witness] himself doesn't deny that he did it. For all of this talk about [defense witness] being confused, I started taking a ledger of how many times during [the complaining witness's] testimony the words, I don't recall or I don't remember or some variation of that was uttered. I think it was three dozen.

​

And, miraculously, it's very interesting he remembers everything so vividly about being cut off and this car -- this lunatic car that had cut off seven or eight people. All of that is very vivid in his memory. But the second he gets out of the vehicle, he doesn't remember any of his actions. Remembers everything afterwards as well, but during the relevant period of time, nothing. But he himself on cross-examination conceded the point, he didn't even deny it that he threw the first punch or that he opened the door. All right. So, that's three witnesses.

You heard from [prosecution witness]. [Prosecution witness] had testified yesterday that he didn't remember saying anything about who threw the first punch. Now, you heard from [the case detective], an experienced detective, somebody who's been with the police department for sixteen years, somebody who prepared a written report of that statement from that day, a statement that was made the same day of the event. And you heard from [the case detective]. He said that [the complaining witness] threw the first punch. Just disregard all of that.

​

The only outlier witness in the entire bunch was [prosecution witness] who said the thing about the piranhas attacking. All right. Now, I'm not here to attack [prosecution witness]. I'm not here to say that she's malicious or she's a liar or she's a bad person. I'm not here to say any of that. I don't have any doubt that she testified to the best of her recollection to an event that occurred over a year ago. An event that she herself acknowledged was highly traumatic for her that had triggered bad memories for her. But the simple matter is your job as a jury is, again, not to blindly accept any witness' testimony. You have to try to synthesize the testimony, compare different witnesses' testimony, and do your best to determine what happened. Her testimony does not fit with all of the other testimony in this case with respect to the four kids getting out of the car and beating on him. It just doesn't. I mean, even [prosecution witness], himself had testified none of the other kids got out of the car and were involved in the fight. She is literally the only witness who says that.

​

So, another fact, nobody ever saw the knife. Now, [the prosecutor] has painted this picture of the stabbing had to have occurred outside the vehicle. All right. [prosecution witness] says he saw him swinging. He didn't see a knife. [Prosecution witness] said she never saw a knife. No witness ever said they saw a knife. And I think the reasonable inference for you to draw from that is it's because the stabbing occurred in the car like [defense witness] described. If that were the case, you would not see the knife. I would submit to you that is the only way that other people would not have seen the knife because it occurred exactly as [defense witness] told you it happened. The stabbing was very chaotic, very quick. It occurred in the car. [The defendant] put the knife down. That's why nobody saw the knife outside the car. This fantasy that it happened outside of the car is completely unsupported by their own witnesses.

​

They've put a great deal into this concept of flight, that they must have taken off because they're guilty. All right. I don't think it takes a great intellect to figure out these are young kids. Okay. We're in big-boy court. This is adult court. But this is a kid. You heard from [defense witness], we've never been through anything like this before, stressful event, traumatic. Should they have stayed at the scene? Yes. Sure. Hindsight 20/20, that would have been the best thing to do. They're kids. They panicked. They left. But you heard from the officers, as soon as they got involved, the phone call is made. [The defendant], police are here at the house. You need to get home. He comes home. He pulls over. He allows himself to be handcuffed. He tells the officer the knife is in the car. He's completely cooperative with the process of being arrested. So, I think we can put to bed this notion that he's evading the police and evading prosecution and that should be a major part of your analysis. It's not supported by the evidence in any way, shape, or form. All right. So, those are the facts or at least it's my best recitation of the facts as I remember them.

​

And so, then the question becomes how do you apply the law to those facts and that evidence? So, now is a good time to talk about what beyond a reasonable doubt means. [The prosecutor] is talking about daycares and boats and buying cars. I don't know what he's talking about. All right. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard that exists in any courtroom in this country. They might like to minimize it and hide that fact, but it is. The jury instruction in this case will tell you a probability of guilt is not enough for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A suspicion, no matter how strong, is not enough for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, in other words, even if you were to go back into that jury deliberation room and you were to say I think the kid is probably guilty, it's not guilty. That's the only appropriate verdict. If you get back there and you said, man, I really strongly suspect he's guilty, right then and there you can shut down your deliberation because the only appropriate verdict is not guilty. You really can stop right there. I don't think they've gotten anywhere close to that point. But even if you got there, you say not guilty.

​

You know, another way that I like to frame it to people as far as beyond a reasonable doubt is -- we're not always here for criminal cases. Sometimes it's disputes over money. Sometimes there's disputes over custody of a child. The burden of proof that's required to take your money from you is less than beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof that is required to take your own children from you is less than the burden of beyond a reasonable doubt. And they like to poo-poo it, but it is enshrined in the Constitution. It is part of America. Beyond a reasonable doubt is such an extraordinarily high standard because in this country, we're founded on concepts of freedom and liberty. We do not take the idea of putting a man behind bars, having him sleep on a cold, hard, dirty mattress with murders and rapists easy. That is not a decision we take lightly in this country. And so, when you're talking about the highest burden of proof that exists in any courtroom in this country, I think it only logically flows that it demands the highest quality of testimony, the highest quality of evidence. And the simple question for you is, has that been provided to me in this case? And the resounding answer is, no. What they've given to you is a drunk maniac.

​

[The prosecutor] had mentioned, well, yeah, [medical witness] had said, we don't know what impact alcohol would have on any individual person. It can amplify their personality characteristics. I think, [the prosecutor] had said, it sort of shows the real you. Well, if that's the case, it doesn't paint a very flattering portrait for [the complaining witness]. Because if it brings out the real you, if it amplifies the real you, there's no mystery. Is he a mad drunk? Is he a happy drunk? Guess what? He's a mad drunk, Mad drunk that chases teenagers down.

Another fact that I hadn't mentioned to you is let's compare the size of these people. That's certainly something for you to consider in a self-defense analysis. 220-pound man, forty-one years old at the time. We're almost exactly the same age. Grown ass man as [the defendant] told his father. Grown man, ex-Army, testified he has hand-to-hand combat skills that he was taught in the Army versus [the defendant], eighteen year old, 130 pounds soaking wet. You know something they said, I counted this one nine times, brought a knife to a fistfight. That was their whole theme.

​

You know, we go to these lawyer seminars and what they tell you is, you need to have a tagline for your case. You need to have a slogan for your case. That's the one they went with. Put it up there with the nice clip art with the knife and the fist. Repeated it over and over and over again. Let's deconstruct this notion of, brought a knife to a fistfight for a moment. The first part of that is, did he bring a knife to a fight? No. He was going to the beach. He didn't know there was going to be a fight. He didn't know a drunken maniac was going to chase him down, stomp on the brakes, get out of his car, rip open the driver's side door, and start whaling on him. No. This was a knife that was in the vehicle because it's a knife that his dad's business sells. And as happens many times when you have a businessman, they have their child working for them. The knife was in the car because he worked for the business and he was going to go play football. So, the first part of that statement is not true. He wasn't bringing a knife to a fistfight. He was bringing a knife in the car to the beach.

​

What about the second part of that statement, a fistfight. Let's talk about a fistfight and define what a fight is. A fight has two mutual combatants. It means two people that have chosen they're going to fight. Like a boxing match. UFC, if that's something you prefer, where you have two guys who have agreed, we're going to engage in combat. And even in that, you have weight classes, not 90 pound weight disparities. This wasn't a fight. This was one guy who wanted to fight and a kid who wanted nothing to do with it. That you heard from [prosecution witness], [The defendant] was swinging his arms wildly like windmills because he doesn't know how to fight. Does that sound like a guy who wants to throw down with a guy who outweighs him by almost 100 pounds? Give me a break. It's not a fight. I've got a different definition for a grown man who decides to beat on teenagers, that's called assault. That's called a beating. So, let's put this notion of a knife to a fistfight to bed right now. This was no fight. This was an assault. And make no mistake about it, an assault committed by that man. All right.

​

So, let's talk a little bit about the self-defense instructions. You heard in your -- you're going to get them all back. I know there's no way everybody just memorized those things, and only lawyers can write them like that. But it will tell you that in a self-defense situation, it's not our burden to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not even our burden to prove it beyond a preponderance of the evidence. The only thing that's required is it puts a reasonable doubt in your mind. That's it. All right. And so, there's two specific instructions. You get to choose which one you think is more appropriate or the appropriate one for your legal analysis. One is called the with fault instruction. One is the without fault instruction. So, the without fault instruction you do if you feel like he was not at fault in bringing about the original altercation. The with fault instruction is the one you apply if you think he had some role in bringing about the fight.

​

I would submit to you the without fault instruction is clearly the appropriate one for you to use. It sort of boggles my mind the argument that he would be at fault for getting chased down, pursued into a condominium complex, having somebody brake check him, park his car, get out, open his door, and punch him while he's still seatbelted into the seat. I don't see how he's at fault in that situation in bringing about the altercation. So, that being the situation, the analysis is quite simple. One, did he have reasonable fear of imminent harm? Not only did he have reasonable fear of imminent harm, the harm was actively being inflicted on him. You know, if I were to charge at somebody with my fists clinched, red faced, and drunk, that could give rise to reasonable fear that I'm going to harm you. This went way beyond that. He's actively getting punched. He's getting beaten on. All right. So, that one -- that analysis should take you about ten seconds, yes, he had reasonable fear of imminent harm.

​

Second part of the analysis, did he use no more force than was reasonably necessary under the circumstances? Now, this has been the other major component of their argument is to say, well, look, he didn't have any major injuries to him which I will concede, he didn't have major injures. If you look at the photos, he does have bruises. But it's true, he wasn't hurt that bad which is kind of the point of self-defense. Okay. According to their theory, what you should actually do is just kind of curl up into the fetal position, you know, just start getting beat up, and just hope your attacker stops. You know, just wait until you have your brains beaten in before you take action to protect yourself. Well, no, that's not the way self-defense works. Okay. Maybe that argument sounds good to them in this nice, bright, courtroom, air-conditioned. Deputy over here to protect everybody with a gun on his hip with two days to pour over the evidence. Doesn't work that well when you've got milliseconds, seconds at best, to figure out what am I going to do to protect myself from this guy who seems angry, enraged, outweighs me by 100 pounds ripping open my door and pounding on me. Self-defense is a right that has existed since the existence of law. Every man and woman in this country has the right to protect themselves if somebody is trying to harm them. No person has an obligation to curl up into the fetal position and hope for the best and just hope some madman isn't going to beat your brains in. That's not the law. Self-defense sometimes is referred to as a natural law. Even in nature all living beings, humans and otherwise, if somebody is trying to harm you, you will take steps to protect yourselves. It's instinctual. When somebody has ripped open your car door and you're still seatbelted in and you're getting beaten on, you're going to take steps to protect yourselves and in this situation you heard he did the only thing available to him. This man over him, punching him, both fists outweighing him by eighty or ninety pounds. He did what he could. He did the best he could to get out of that situation.

​

And this idea that the injuries aren't consistent with what [defense witness] described and what [defense witness] described, I completely disagree. Not only did nobody see a knife, you heard from [medical witness], [Medical witness] said these injuries were really nasty. Obviously, you saw the photos, too. And let me just say for a minute. You know, I've said some nasty things about [the complaining witness]. I'm glad that he's recovered. Nobody wants the two children not to have a father or for him not to be able to go home to his wife. Nobody wants that. Okay. It doesn't mean he escapes responsibility for his actions that day. I hope he's gotten help for his alcohol issues and his anger issues that he clearly has. Okay.

​

Fact of the matter is, you know what is consistent, if you get stabbed and you're in there rotating your body, throwing blows, whaling down on the young man, the injuries are perfectly consistent with that. They've given you no reasonable explanation for why nobody saw the knife outside of the car other than the stabbing happened inside the car.

 

So, I'm going to be wrapping -- I've probably talked too long already. And I promise I'm going to be wrapping it up very soon. It's always a very painful thing for the defense attorney because after I sit down, this is the last time I get to talk to you, and they get to get up one more time. And so that's excruciating when you're a defense attorney because you always want to say no or make a counterpoint and say, no, that argument doesn't make sense, but I can't do it and it stinks as a defense attorney, but it is what it is. All right. But just because they say it last, it doesn't make it so. All right. They don't get the last word. I don't get the last word. You get the last word. And when you go back into that jury deliberation room, another thing that you've heard is that your verdict is required to unanimous. All of you have to agree on what the appropriate verdict is in this case. I like to put that to people in a way that I think makes it a little more meaningful which is every single one of you is individually responsible for the outcome of this case. Everyone single one of you, individually, personally controls the outcome of this case. Any single one of you can, and, in fact, has the obligation to stand up and to say, no, I will not do the government's bidding. I will not sweep all of the inconvenient facts under the rug. I will not selectively choose the testimony that fits your fantasy narrative. No. I will do my job as a juror. I will be a sceptic. I will poke and I will prod and I will see how the evidence lines up.

​

The only appropriate verdict in this case is not guilty. It is the only appropriate verdict on the evidence that has been presented to you. And when you go back into that jury deliberation room and you come out with a verdict of not guilty, you can feel good. You can feel proud. You should hold your head high because, one, by returning that verdict, you will have done the job that you swore to do when you raised your right hand and you took an oath at the beginning of the case. It is the only appropriate verdict on this evidence. As I said to you, even a probability of guilt isn't enough. You've got nowhere close to that. Two, you can hold your head up high and you can feel good coming out of that room with that verdict because you will have proven that the jury system in this country works. The presumption of innocence, the demand for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, these aren't just empty words written on a piece of parchment somewhere. They actually mean something. And when good citizens from the community are called to action, they will put meaning behind those words. They will hold them to those burdens. The only appropriate verdict in this case is not guilty.

Thank you for your time. Thank you for your attention. Thank you for your jury service.