My response (word for word, from my journal) to the closing arguments of a murder trial we saw in Boston.
WOW! Was today ever an EYE OPENER! The murder trial this morning was absolutely mind blowing. We were very lucky to be able to sit in on such a case – and to hear the closing arguments, a re-cap of the case! – but at the same time, I felt a bit guilty, like a third, unwanted party, spectator to their grief [the family.] The case was that of a young black 20 year old man who killed another 20 y. o. (black man) after a fight between them, allegedly over money. The question was, is it manslaughter (heath of the passion; provoked) or murder 1 (calculated, malice.) I noticed the jury was mostly white, with only 2 black members (a man and a woman) which seemed unfair, and this was something Denise brought up, that minorities should be entitled to minority juries.
The defence began by saying we humans are frail, emotion beings, and that the defendant completely lost his cool after being confronted and assaulted by the (now deceased) victim. What if came down to, between the prosecution and defence, was his (the defendant’s) state of mind. Can a reasonable person lose such restraint, blinded by anger and humiliation? The prosecution placed a lot of emphasis on a person’s ability to reflect, which I think may be somewhat overestimated in this case. I mean, if we’re all fired up, do we ever reflect, or simply find the quickest release for our fury, which in this case was revenge. On the other hand, I think the defence may have overplayed the ‘ego/manhood’ card – how much can you really argue that someone is more humiliated because they’re beaten up in front of their girlfriend, which drives them into a blind rage and killing frenzy?
But what it all comes down to is speculation, really – I mean how can we ever KNOW – especially in a case like this one – what was going through his head? The evidence can only ‘tell’ (or rather, suggest) so much. The rest is up to your lawyers to persuade the jury. Another curiosity was the clause of ‘cruel and atrocious crimes,’ and as one of the closing arguments noted, aren’t all crimes [i.e. murder] cruel and atrocious? [though I suppose some more so than others...everything’s relative.] What makes one any more so than another? The number of lives taken, and the way in which they were taken, I suppose, but all life is sacred.
x
JAG
