Pared-down defense enough for an acquittal

Although we believed the judge’s ruling was wrong and would have given us an excellent chance to get a conviction overturned on appeal, the ruling made presenting our defense far more difficult because we were unable to tell jurors our theory of what happened.

My client lives alone, and was asleep when his neighbor claimed the incident took place. We didn’t have any witnesses to verify that my client was asleep, but the prosecution had two witnesses who claimed my client committed an assault.

A defendant does not have to testify, but my client decided to take the witness stand. He did an excellent job of presenting his side of the story, which was essentially limited to him saying he was asleep, alone, at home at the time of the supposed assault.

He came across as an honest, forthright person and gave jurors reason to think that perhaps the state’s witnesses were not telling the truth. After all, the defense doesn’t have to prove that a crime didn’t happen. The burden is on the prosecutor to demonstrate proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a crime was committed.

In the end, my client’s testimony and my questioning of the state’s witnesses were enough to win a not-guilty verdict. The six jury members took their jobs seriously and kept the high standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in mind. Arguing in front of such a diligent jury is always an encouraging and rewarding experience.