The Orient, in this case, is not eastern
Client was accused of Failure to Comply with an Order or Signal of a Police Officer. In lay terms, a deputy sheriff attempted to stop him and cite him for speed. He was accused of not stopping and leading the deputy on a high speed chase through a city. Several hours later, he was arrested at his residence. He had an odor of alcohol. He was also charged with Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence.
The participants in the case all strongly believed a jury would convict Client. Preliminary discussions were centered on the length of the penalty, not whether the State could prove its case. Other persons in the Courthouse agreed: Client would be convicted; it was only a matter of time.
We focused our defense on identity. Because the driver of the vehicle succeeded in escaping from the officer, no person was ever seen in the vehicle. At least, that is what the deputy said in his report. However, at trial, the deputy testified that, during a turn, traveling at speeds in excess of 35 m.p.h., at midnight, he was able to see into the car and make a 100% certain identification of Client. The jury didn't believe the testimony of the officer beyond a reasonable doubt.
Another witness placed Client near the vehicle earlier in the evening. However, the witness also placed a number of other people near the vehicle. By focusing the defense on the most suspect issue, we were able to direct the jury to the location of doubt. Many attorneys will employ a "shotgun" defense attacking everywhere all the time. We have found the most success with a targeted attack. First, the jury finds credibility in a person who can admit the flaws in his argument (conceding elements we are not attacking). Second, we are able to focus the jury's discussion on the issue we find most beneficial to our case.
I was most impressed with the jury in Client's case. Though some of them believed he probably had been the driver of the vehicle, the obeyed the law. It is illegal for a jury to convict a person if the jury, "thinks he did it," or believes, "he probably did it." The jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. They must rely on the decision-making skills they use in the most important of their affairs. The jury followed the law and entered a verdict of not guilty in the case. I am proud of their dedication to the rule of law.
