I’m the attorney for defense and my client has been charged with attempted school bombing. The person who accused her is a school bully, which is proven with several witnesses, and possibly might have set another person up for a crime.
However, the client told the bully that she would "get him back" and has art depicting the bully in flames. Then again, she is an artist and was told to express herself with art.
What should my opening statement cover in regards to my witnesses and evidence?
My witnesses are a psychologist who vouches for the bullying, a scientitist who says the bomb was poorly constructed, and a friend who says the defendent would never do such a thing and hints at the bully’s history of setting up people.
The evidence is the chemicals found at my client’s house (commonly used chemicals) and the fact that no fingerprints were found on the bomb.
The case is between her and the general public. One of the prosecution’s witnesses is a boy who harrassed her and some evidence points to the fact that he might have set her up.
Am I allowed to, in the opening statement, talk about how the prosecution’s witness may have set her up, or should I just focus on defending my client?
Are you thinking about selling your home yourself? then
I am not an attorney, but I am sure you know, being an attorney, that they don’t always like to give out free advice
Therefore I can only give you my opinions and advice based on my past experience with the justice system.
You have stated that no fingerprints were found on the bomb and that the bomb was constructed using commonly used chemicals. That really introduces a lot of doubt as to the bombs creator. Was the bomb design (even though you stated it was poorly made) something that would be considered general knowledge? That is, can anyone make it without the aid or researching bomb design? Most instances that I have seen where police and prosecutors attempt to link a bomb creator to the bomb is evidence of bomb making research on that person’s computer or via books read on the subject. Were any such items ever found and linked to your client? I am assuming police found the chemicals in question in the home via a search warrant? Were computers or books siezed as well? If nothing points to your client researching bomb making techniques and the bomb is not something your average person could construct without doing some level of research, I would say that would be a good talking point for your opening arguments.
As far as your client’s statement that she would "get him back" in regards to the bully, this one is a tougher sell. My point of view on it is that she didn’t say HOW she was going to get him back (i.e. blow him up, etc). The unfortunate part is, prosecutors and police ALWAYS seem to assume the worst when they hear things like this. The key word there is assume. They never take into account that someone can get back at someone else LEGALLY!!! I know all too well what it feels like to have something you say taken out of context and distorted into an alternative meaning. Those words, along with the drawings, are something you may want to toil with to find the best method of damage control. Someone logical and analytical would more or less say that while a bit damning, they don’t really prove anything in regards to a bombing attempt. Sadly, most people live their lives driven by emotion and not logic.
Another question I would have for you is are there any other witnesses available to you that can actually testify to the actions of this bully? That is, witnesses that have seen him bullying others? What about the possibility that he set someone else up? Is there any admissible proof to that? I know you want to make the jury sympathetic to your client, but in my opinion, it may not be that wise to point the finger at the bully if you cannot prove it. However, if the bully is their key witness and you have proof as to his lack of integrity, then I would bring that up in your opening arguments. Especially if you can show a trend in the bully’s behavioral habits. They are going to try to tear apart your client’s character, you might as well do the same to theirs.
In an an opening statement you tell the jury what you believe (without ever saying "I believe," – that’s improper) (a) the prosecution’s evidence will not prove and (b) what your evidence will prove. For instance in your scenario you could say, among other things, "The evidence will show that these materials were commonly available to anyone and the state will not be able to show any evidence placing these chemicals in my client’s hands." and "The evidence will show that the accuser had a pre-existing a grudge against my client." Generally, you would also remind them that the state has the sole burden of proof of all the elements of the accusation beyond a reasonable doubt.