Case Highlight: Attacked in His Own Home. This transcript captures the closing argument in a malicious wounding case where our client was prosecuted for defending himself against a heavily intoxicated, sexually aggressive attacker, a trained competitive wrestler, inside his own home. We kept the focus on cold, hard facts: the Commonwealth's two key witnesses were caught lying under oath, contradicted by their own body-camera footage on everything from how much they had been drinking to the complainant's wrestling background, while the wounds themselves were superficial and entirely consistent with reasonable, proportional self-defense. With the prosecution's star witnesses exposed as perjurers and the self-defense evidence essentially unrebutted, the jury returned a not guilty verdict, vindicating a man who did nothing more than protect himself in his own home.

​

All right, so the very first thing I want to do. You might have seen me over there grabbing tissues. Please don't hold that against my client, but that's what I needed to do. I did my best to get through this without them. I'm not sick, it's allergies. So, with that said, the second thing I want to do is thank you all for being here. This is a very unique thing we have in this country, that we have jury trials. You get people from the community to come together, weigh the government's case against somebody, hold them to a very high standard, and then to make a final determination. To be skeptics, question the evidence, to presume this guy is innocent. You all showed up, you answered the call. This has been hanging over (the defendant)'s head for a while, but now he finally gets his day in court, and that can't happen unless people answer the call and show up for jury duty. So, I thank you all for that. I know (the defendant) does as well.

​

When I did my opening statement, I told you that these criminal cases are all about the same thing. They're about evidence, cold hard evidence. What is that overwhelming evidence that is required to put you in that state of near certainty, to the point where you don't have a single reasonable doubt left in your mind whether this person committed the crime? Because that is the standard that is required in this country to convict somebody. It's a very high burden. So, the Commonwealth gets to put their case together and present it to you. They have all the benefits of the entire police department to do their investigation and then put on every shred of evidence they have to prove this guy guilty. So they've had that opportunity. The time has come, and it's gone, and it's failed miserably. It's not even close now.

​

Obviously, this whole thing about the stabbing is not in dispute, not in any way, shape, or form. So, what is it we're left with? We're left with the why. And the only thing the Commonwealth presents to you are two witnesses who lied through their teeth on the stand, and I don't say that lightly. They perjured themselves. Now, as defense attorneys, we just dream of that moment where somebody says something, and we can demonstrate that that is a lie. That is not a misstatement, that is you lying to a jury in a very serious context, and you're doing it for a reason. So, let me start with (the complaining witness). So, (the complaining witness), let's talk about his drinking, this timeline of drinking. So, he's testifying that I get off work close to 10 o'clock, I go to (the local bar). I have two drinks. I don't remember if I had a third, but maybe say two drinks from there. The next thing that's happening, I'm not drinking in the car, I'm not that kind of guy, I would never do that. But the next thing that's happening is they have (the defendant) in the car, they get to (the defendant)'s place, and he says I had two shots, two seltzer water alcohol beverages, so you're accounting for six if you want to be charitable. Give him a big margin of error, this is over the course of a five hour night, because we've got him at (the local bar) having drinks, let's say around 10:00, might have been 10:15 might have been 10:30 I'm not trying to play fast and loose with the facts here, 10:00 to 11:00. Look at the medical records, 0300 means 3:00 AM, he's getting his blood taken. The five hour time span where he has time for his body to metabolize one drink per hour. You heard from (the forensic expert), she gave us all the science on that. She had said basically your range would be 11 to 22 drinks within one hour to get to over around three times the legal limit, and the legal limit is .08. Her range was .22 to .25, so we're talking about right there in that range.

​

If you factor in these five hours, do the math, you're now at 16 to 27 drinks that night. That is way off from what he testified to. So you're going to have to ask yourself, what did he do? Just have a bunch of drinks and he's driving his friend around, being the designated driver, that's possible. Or he shows up to (the defendant)'s place and he's on a mission to get absolutely annihilated because he's pounding drinks at some point. But I'm going to be honest, that's not really the point. The point is he got on the stand, and he lied to all of you. That is demonstrable through science, and that's very important. Because what if we didn't have that result in blood alcohol? He would have got on that stand. He would have looked at all of you. I don't really drink that much. I was sober that night. The worst that happened to me was I got a little bit of a buzz, nothing beyond that. And we would just be sitting there, not having anything to work with. We'd be questioning him, he'd be sticking to his guns, just like on all those other questions where he was caught lying.

​

That is not a small fact. So it goes to a couple aspects of this case. One is he's hammered out of his mind. He gets up there and he says basically the theme is he's the docile gay best friend, and he's up there and he's just trying to take a guy home because that's the culture in (the area). I guess I didn't get the memo on that, that you just go picking up people randomly, and that's just culture out in (the area). But you heard (the forensic expert) talk about how a lot of your personality traits get elevated, so in the hospital, what do you see him saying? I bet you that motherfucker is missing a tooth. He's talking trash in the hospital bed. This is not a guy who was like, "Oh no, I'm a victim, I've been stabbed, I'm so docile and calm and pure." No, he's talking about, MFer must be missing a tooth. He had no explanation for that. Never hit him in the face, never saw him hit his face, never saw (the second witness) hit his face. No idea why I would say such a thing. So you know that's a problem. Then the question becomes, why is it that he would lie? Why would he lie about the alcohol consumption? Because he doesn't want to be seen for what he is, a heavily drunk person acting belligerent, sexually assaulting a guy. He doesn't want to be seen that way. I hate using this phrase in court, but he doesn't want to seem like a horned up guy who's on a mission, but he's clearly on a mission. He saw (the defendant). (the defendant) used the word prey. He saw him as prey, and he preyed upon him. He thought this was a great opportunity. So why is it he would also be pounding all these drinks to get his inhibitions lowered, get in the mood to make his move. That's exactly what happened.

​

(the defendant) gave you a version that we'll get into in a minute, but (the defendant)'s version makes sense. These other two people, (the complaining witness) and (the second witness), their version does not make sense. The second thing that we can demonstrate that everybody is lying about. Did you take any videos that night? Videos? No, we didn't take videos and post them on Snapchat. Okay, let me play you this clip where you're saying, go on my Snapchat, go to my recent. There's a couple of videos on there. "He's fine as hell, he's sexy as fuck. Oh my god, he's so hot." That's the type of stuff that he's saying right after the incident. Then he gets on the stand and acts like he has no idea about videos or Snapchat. And the reason would be because he doesn't realize that this officer has a small body camera that's recording all this stuff. He thinks he gets to come in here and just say whatever he wants. Yeah, good luck calling me out. Well, little does he know, we have all this evidence and we're able to call him out. It's a beautiful thing.

​

And why would he lie about that? Because he doesn't want you to know, he's hammered and extremely attracted to (the defendant). He's videoing this random stranger where they just went to his house to hang out. And you know, he does acknowledge he thinks that (the defendant) is an attractive guy. He does say that he's a good looking guy, but he really distances himself from being a flirty guy with (the defendant). He's turning this into (the defendant) couldn't get enough of me. (the defendant), this guy, he just kept coming on to me over and over and over. So we know that to be false, because this guy has his own phone. You start scrolling through your phone, your photos, and what's saved on there. What's in your cloud? Oh, geez, I have all this video evidence on my Snapchat account. Wow, that's in my recents. He gets up there and he pretends like he's got no idea what anybody's talking about. He perjured himself, he lied through his teeth. You don't know this guy personally, I'll tell you, I don't know him either. But what do you know? He's the kind of guy that would get up there in a court of law in a very serious case and lie through his teeth, and that's a problem.

​

I'm going to get to now my favorite part of him lying on the stand, the wrestling. That was beautiful. Huge fan of that part of this case. And the reason is because he had casually dropped in, I used to wrestle on direct. And then when I bring it up, he tries to downplay it heavily. I used to wrestle. Good, average wrestler. It's not like I went to the regional tournament or anything like that. Why would he say that? He would say that because he knows that it's a very impressive accomplishment to go to the regional tournament. He knows that, so he's up there lying through his teeth, offering that up. Little does he know that (the defendant)'s law firm has done a lot of preparation on this case, extensive preparation. We know for a fact he was in the AAA West regional tournament, wrestling for (his high school). This guy is a great wrestler, he's very impressive. As a freshman, he places fourth, he goes to the conference finals. On top of that, he's trained under (an Olympic wrestler). He's got ambitions to get a college scholarship to wrestle. This guy's an impressive wrestler. He's good, and it's very clear that he had high ambitions for himself. And the point of all this, why would he be sitting right there looking at all of you and claiming, "Well, it's not like I'm the guy who went to the regional tournament." Why would he do that again? Because he knows it's impressive. This is not, I might not have remembered that I was a high school regional tournament prolific wrestler training under an Olympian. He's offering that up because he wants to distance himself from the fact that he's really good at wrestling. Again, ask yourself, why would he do that? It's probably because he wants to be able to come in here and say I was absolutely manhandled. I was docile in the prone position as I was being brutally stabbed by this guy. But that's not the truth. And on the point of wrestling, it's interesting that this case ends up being a wrestling match. You've got (the second witness) saying there was wrestling, (the complaining witness) saying there was wrestling. (the defendant)'s version has him being in a hold, being pulled to the ground. And I'm not going to be disingenuous. (the defendant)'s a big guy, he is. He's a dude that you would probably, most people would think could handle himself. And you wouldn't think someone like (the complaining witness) is going to come attack him. I'm not trying to be disingenuous, but let's call it what it is. (the defendant), he's 215 at the time. (the complaining witness) is 215, 5'10. He's got a good build, he's a strong guy, he knows how to wrestle. But he gets up there, looks at all of you, and says, "it's not like I'm a regional tournament wrestler." Garbage, it's absolute trash.

 

So, let's talk about (the second witness). Same thing with the videos and photos. She claims I didn't take any videos, I didn't take any photos. What even is that? And then you play the body cam clip. Oh yeah, I got videos on my phone. And later, another clip, I got videos, and I got photos on my phone, even more than I said before. And this whole thing about, I think I might have provided them to the police. There's not any explanation for where this stuff is, whether it even existed. I'll tell you, it probably did exist, and then now, poof, it's magically gone. It has just vanished off the face of the earth, and that's a problem, because it's the government's burden. They can't explain any of this. Also, let's go to the bruise. The photos of the bruise. I have this evidence that's super important in this criminal case. Yeah, I got that now. Cool, where is it? "I don't know where. It's not here, though." So, you saw that phone. I don't know if you saw her reaction when that question was asked, but it was a lot of smirking. That's interesting. It's interesting when I say watch the demeanor, the mannerisms. Is her story consistent? Is it not? That's important stuff now. Next, I want to talk about the assault (the second witness) describes. At least four times at the hospital. He grabbed me by the neck, and that's it. She doesn't say she was thrown across the room, she doesn't say she hit the ground, she didn't say anything about that. What she does say, I kicked him. I don't know if you saw that clip and really paid attention. And then we ask, "did you ever kick this guy?" "Nah, I never kicked him." Oh, really? Why is it that you're on camera saying that you kicked him right after the incident? Doesn't make any sense. And the other versions were, he grabbed me by the back of the neck, but I got away. And then there were the two other ones where he just grabbed me by the neck. She's saying she's grabbed by the back of the neck. If you were grabbed by (the defendant) by the back of the neck and thrown across the room, you'd probably lead with that. You wouldn't say, "I got away, I kicked him." You wouldn't be saying stuff like that, because that just never happened.

​

(the defendant) told you that he's sort of in a tussle, doing his best with (the complaining witness) to back him up. She might have been run into during that process. All they know is she left, and she's not there for when the actual stabbing part happens. So that's (the second witness) lying under oath. This is beautiful stuff, because this is what you have to judge these people off of. Super important. I will say that we've just shown you five examples of their star witnesses perjuring themselves. I'd love for them to get up and explain how that's not perjury. How he just forgot a three day West regional wrestling tournament.

​

Now I'm going to point out there's multiple instances where either one or both of them are lying, these stories don't line up. They have every opportunity, every opportunity to save themselves by just saying, "Hey, it was a little fuzzy, I don't remember." So, let's talk about where one or both of them might be lying, the back rub, the massage in the car. You have (the second witness) saying I was right in the front seat next to (the complaining witness). (the defendant) gets in, being super flirty, starts giving him a back rub. It's happening for about a minute or two. I saw it, and then she says, when asked about, did (the complaining witness) respond to that? "Ooh, I like that. I definitely like that." And then, when we asked (the complaining witness), "Hey, did you ever get a back rub from this guy?" No, I don't get a back rub. He's hitting my headrest, which I think is super flirty. But beyond that, can't really say much. You have this idea of sexual contact between (the defendant) and (the complaining witness). In that context, we're talking about the part in (the defendant)'s house, where she's saying they wandered off to the bathroom. I had the distinct impression they were doing sexual stuff this time. She said (the complaining witness) and (the defendant) came back and basically reported to me that we did sexual things. And I called out from the preliminary hearing, that's not what you said. You said he came up to you and whispered, "He's trying to do stuff on me." That's what she said at the preliminary hearing. Does she have a good explanation for why her story changes? Absolutely not. She doesn't. But we have all these instances of perjury, of lying. Again, I don't say that lightly, but I don't know what else to call it.

​

There are other various things in the night that also don't make sense. These aren't huge details, but they do show you that either they're intentionally perjuring themselves or they just don't have a good recollection of the night. Because these details aren't small. You have the first time they saw (the defendant). (the second witness)'s version is he's running, sprinting through a parking lot, sprinting through a parking lot. (the complaining witness)'s version is walking, so he's meandering slowly along. When you have been stabbed by the madman that they claim (the defendant) to be. You probably reflect on that night. Damn, how did we get into this position in the first place? How did that happen? Remember, we saw him in that parking lot. He was just sprinting, and let's talk about if he was sprinting through the parking lot. How did they catch up to him to be like, "Hey, buddy, you want to ride?" That doesn't make sense. Sprinting through the parking lot? Walking makes way more sense. And that's what (the defendant) said. He's just walking in the area, trying to get home because he lives nearby. Another detail that's small, but again worth mentioning, How do they get upstairs to (the defendant)'s place? (the second witness)'s version: (the complaining witness) and (the defendant) went upstairs, and they called down from the balcony. "Hey, come on up, let's have some drinks." (the complaining witness)'s version, "We all walked in at the exact same time." That's a big difference. I was up on the balcony saying, "Hey, yeah, come on up" versus we all walked in at the same time. Again, it's a small detail that you guys might think is immaterial to this case, but it's important. Because details matter, especially when we're talking about the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. You've got (the complaining witness) saying that (the defendant) was being violent and degrading and demeaning towards (the second witness). Maybe it was just verbally, but (the second witness) doesn't endorse that. At some point, she says that (the defendant) turns into a monster, he's an animal, but she says, "No, it wasn't that bad. We're just hanging out with banter, and then at some point everything turned way later in the night." But (the complaining witness) gets called out because of the preliminary hearing. He said, "I went down about the seltzers, and as soon as I cracked one open, he's just being a monster towards my friend." Why would he change his story? Because he's getting called out. Because if he's coming right back up with these seltzers to a guy's house he doesn't know, and (the second witness) is his best friend in the world, he wouldn't stand for that, he'd want to leave immediately, wouldn't he?

​

I mean, (the complaining witness) is sober, he's maybe at most got a buzz according to him. This stranger who's not a small guy is apparently being super rude to your best friend in the whole world. So I don't know who to believe there. But you've got (the complaining witness), apparently there's some attraction if you want to take him at his word. Where he's still going to stay there, still have drinks, still have banter. Could it be because he finds (the defendant) extremely attractive and wanted to hang out with him that night and wanted to get his inhibitions down so he can then do whatever it is he wants to try to do? Consistent with (the defendant)'s story, that makes perfect sense.

​

This thing about the pants coming down in the kitchen. That's an interesting one because (the complaining witness) gets on the stand, he says, "Yes, this thing happened after the chocolates. (the defendant) just pulls his pants down, stands there, penis out." For, he said, 10 seconds on the stand, and then he got called out because at preliminary hearing, he said it could have been more than a minute, could have been less than a minute. I think that's a major difference, especially given this is an open floor plan. You can see everybody from any vantage point. (the second witness) says, "I don't know what you're talking about." That's interesting. Why is that? They can't get their stories straight. You're trying to figure out, is it a good thing to be drunk? Is it a bad thing to be drunk? (the complaining witness) and (the defendant) were both flirting, so then we can then say that (the defendant) just got jealous because (the complaining witness) was leaving the house, because (the complaining witness) was just like, "No, I won't have sexual contact with you." It's absurd.

​

Here's a point I want to make, and I don't want to oversell it or lose credibility with you all by bringing it up. So take it in its full context. (the defendant), obviously, is not a woman, he's not small, he's not petite. Imagine (the defendant) were a woman. Imagine that. Just for a brief moment, here's a woman. She's drunk, she's walking home. Clearly, she's vulnerable. So, somebody pulls up, sees this woman, they think she's good looking. They ask if she wants a ride. She gets in the car. She's clearly intoxicated. Obvious, she's intoxicated. And then the guy in this scenario says she was flirting with me, she was flirting with me. She's basically asking for it. I didn't even drink that much that night. I was perfectly fine. I had my wits about me, but this girl, she couldn't get enough. It's a good-looking girl, but that isn't a thing to me. If that scenario happens, and it turns out the guy's lying, because he's actually over three times the legal limit, that'd be pretty significant. And then, after this woman defends herself, he's laid up in hospital beds, saying, "She's so hot, oh my god, she's so fine." He took lots of videos of her too. This wouldn't even be a question. So, again, I don't want to overplay that. And then the Commonwealth is probably going to throw that in my face and say, "Well, he's not a woman." I understand he's not a woman. But in that scenario, he'd be guilty all day, that guy is guilty, and it would not be even close.

​

So we got through all the facts in this case. And now I get to the boring, nerdy part, which is some of the instructions. You've got to talk about self-defense. This is classic self-defense. (the defendant) is in his own home, all right. He's been candid with you about he was drinking a lot that night. He's the only person in this case that's been candid about how much they had to drink that night. He's in his own home, he's being attacked by a stranger. He's being attacked, this person starts overpowering him. So, one of the things with self-defense is, was he using reasonable force under the circumstances? It's important. (the defendant), what did he do? What did he testify to? "I told him no, get off me." So he used his words. That didn't work. Okay, so after you use your words, what do you do next? You try to fight him off. He's trying, but this guy's getting the upper hand. Why is he getting the upper hand? Maybe because he was trained by an Olympian and also has extensive wrestling experience. So he is now being attacked by a person who's getting the upper hand on him. He's in his own house. (the second witness) has left. What is (the defendant) supposed to do in that scenario? He has a tool designed for self-defense. This is meant to puncture. Which all the evidence shows that that's all that happened. Punctures, little butterfly strips. They're tiny, tiny little things. That was the extent of his injuries. Let's let these things heal on their own, because they were superficial wounds to the skin. This is not slicing and dicing, this isn't puncturing vital organs. This was his treatment at the hospital. Clean the wound and put one of these on it, walk it off. So we're talking about reasonable proportional force.

This self-defense tool is pulled out. He's already tried words, he's already tried whatever hand to hand he can do. It's not working, so he has access to this. He hits him once in the leg, that doesn't work. Hits him in the arm, that doesn't work. Arm, arm, still not working. Arm, arm repeatedly, five times. It's not working, so he hits him in the neck one time. That actually works. And I'll tell you what, he deserved it. He deserved it. Somebody in your home attacking you, belligerent, drunk, horned up. I hate using that phrase in court, but I have to, because I can't think of a better one. Clearly, I've tried to sexually assault him repeatedly, tried to kiss him, tried to kiss him, grabbing his genitals, pulling him in, kind of like in a wrestling move. That's a problem. So, when we talk about, was it a reasonable proportional force? Absolutely, and you've got two instructions. One talks about with fault as if (the defendant) had caused this situation. What would (the defendant)'s role be? Well, he would have to either try to retreat or communicate his intention to not keep the tussle going. He testified to you, he didn't communicate that. I will submit to you, he's absolutely not with fault. He was hosting these people in his home. There's no theory of this case from the Commonwealth that makes sense. It's just, he really wanted to make out with (the complaining witness), but (the complaining witness) just wasn't having it, and started trying to leave, so he just flipped out and started throwing people across the room and stabbing. All right, let's talk. Without fault would be the instruction you should go with, but even if you go with fault, he's covered. He's covered by that.

​

Overlapping with self-defense, this concept of intent to maim, disfigure, disable, or kill, that is what is required for a malicious wounding. Let's say you guys say, you know what, I know (the complaining witness) perjured himself repeatedly, but I still like it. His version is (the defendant) has him on the ground, pinned down. He's got the look of rage in his eyes. He wants to kill, he wants flesh and blood, and he wants to murder. So he breaks out his knife and stabs him in the arm five times. That doesn't make any sense. These are small superficial wounds. So to say that beyond a reasonable doubt, (the defendant) had the intent to maim this person, disfigure him, disable him, or kill him. None of that makes sense. And the Commonwealth pointed out disable almost in the context of that they actually believe (the defendant)'s story. You want to stop him from the attack. You can't have it both ways. There is no intent to maim, disfigure, disable, or kill with the self-defense concept. I want to be clear, there's always their burden to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

​

Again, we don't have to prove self-defense beyond reasonable doubt, we just have to present that to you, and once it's presented to you, if that moves the needle at all to the point where it's below beyond reasonable doubt. You have to find him not guilty. And I'll get into the beyond reasonable doubt standard in a little more detail. I am kind of wrapping up here, but a few things I want to discuss. Heat of passion. I don't think you guys need to get into heat of passion, because that would be he's not guilty of malicious wounding, but he's guilty of a lesser offense. I don't think you guys need to get there unless you try and convict him of unlawful wounding. That would not make sense. In fact, none. No conviction is the only thing that makes sense. But for heat of passion, I do have to address it, or else I'm not doing my job. This guy had just been sexually assaulted, he's just been overpowered by a guy who's a wrestler. He's a very good wrestler, and it makes you ask the question, well, "who chose wrestling in this scenario?" It's just a coincidence that this wrestler decided to engage in a wrestling match with a guy who has no wrestling experience whatsoever. It doesn't make sense. And also you have (the complaining witness) and (the second witness) describing how (the defendant) is just a full force beast, choking out, choking out (the complaining witness). I think (the second witness) is describing with a lot of arm action, and then you've got (the complaining witness) describing this full force, two hands to the neck. And you've got (the defendant), just who's apparently able to manhandle this guy? And do you have any injuries to the trachea or esophagus? You don't have anything like that, just nothing there.

​

Another thing I want to talk about, in the jury instructions, is this concept of voluntary intoxication. It's not a defense, you can't say, "Hey, I got too drunk, and I started stabbing you, but I was drunk, so I'm not guilty." We're not saying at all that voluntary intoxication is the defense. This is the same thing as, say, sexual assault with a female who's fighting for dear life. If she defends herself and she's drunk and she has a knife or a self-defense tool, she can use that all day. The Commonwealth doesn't get to come in and say, "Yeah, she was defending herself, but she's drunk. So it's voluntary intoxication. It's not a defense." You get the point. You can be both drunk and legally defend yourself. You absolutely can do that. Right, it doesn't go away. In fact, that's what some people call a natural right. Someone comes into your house, starts attacking you. Absolutely, you can defend yourself, whether you're drunk or not. Again, we're not talking about voluntary intoxication as part of the defense.

​

The final factual point, do not forget. He's in the hospital after all this. This is a guy who had no interest in (the defendant). Laid up. Why is he saying he's fine as hell, he's sexy as fuck, all this type of stuff. Because, again, he's horned up, that's what he is. He's in the mood, his personality has been magnified. It's magnified three times the legal limit. And if you really just factor in all the drinks and sort of took away the time to metabolize it, he's consumed what would account for four times the legal limit. But since he's metabolized some of that alcohol, he's now at three times the legal limit.

​

All right, so wrapping up here, I promise. Beyond a reasonable doubt, that is a phrase that we hear on TV, probably don't put much reflection to what that means. And here's the way I like to frame it. You can go to any court, whether it's in Texas, Alaska, California, federal court. The standard is always beyond a reasonable doubt, and a way to conceptualize that would be this. In these courtrooms, we're not always talking about criminal trials, we're often talking about civil cases, we're talking about custody disputes. The beyond a reasonable doubt standard is higher than the standard required to take your children from you in a custody dispute. The most precious thing you have. It's higher than that. Higher than the standard to take away your money. Why is that? Because we don't guess people into convictions. We don't just willy nilly say, you know what, I kind of like that guy's story better than that person's story. Out of these three versions, I'm going to pick that one, and now he's guilty. That's not how it works. When you look at your instructions, it will impress upon you how important beyond a reasonable doubt is. Things like suspicion, no matter how high, if you don't get past that, that is not guilty. So you could be highly suspicious, you'd be sitting there thinking, he's a big dude, it's suspicious that this was not a self-defense scenario. If you don't get past that, it's not guilty. It's a very high burden. A probability of guilt, no matter how high, is not sufficient for guilt. If you don't get past that, it's not guilty. So you might be sitting here thinking, I like his story better although he perjured himself repeatedly, (the second witness) too. Even if you prefer their stories, that is not guilt beyond reasonable doubt. You have to know to a level of certainty where you don't have a single reasonable doubt left in your mind. That's absolutely not present in this case.

​

The way this process works, obviously the Commonwealth made an argument. I'm now making my argument, really for real, for real, finishing off, I promise. But they get to go one more time, they get to argue to you, and I don't get to have a counter argument. Oftentimes, having done this for a number of years, they save their loosest arguments for last, because I don't get to get up and say, "Hey, wait a minute, here's the counter argument." So please keep the antennas up for that, because that's a sneaky trick that there's not much we can do about, other than just the speech I'm giving right now. But just because they say it last, doesn't mean that they get the final word. All of you have the final word, each and every one of you individually and collectively hold the outcome of this case in your hands. I say individually, it takes 12 of you to say that this person is guilty in order for him to be found guilty. So, if you're sitting here thinking, you know, what? Geez, they really had the opportunity to give me solid evidence. Instead, they put a bunch of perjurers on the stand. I'm not doing the government's bidding in that scenario. I'm taking this jury service seriously. Stand up for yourself, please. Back there, make your voice heard. That's important. And if you're back there, thinking geez, I can't really make heads or tails of this case. It's pretty muddy, there's three different versions, they don't really line up. There's a lot of significant factors in this case, I can't make heads or tails. Ask yourself, does that cause doubt? And if that causes doubt, is that reasonable doubt? If the answer is yes, then your answer is obvious, let's get out of here, not guilty, we all go home. So I'm asking you all to return the only proper verdict that can be rendered in this case, and that is not guilty. Thank you.