1-15-2015: Closing Arguments

See also: page "Appendix to the Trial"

Throughout this week, I will be attending a trial in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas for a rape case with Judge Zmuda presiding. This is the fourth and last in a series of multiple posts about the trial. Each post will document that day's proceedings and what I learned.

The defendant decided to testify in his own defense as a witness. Before he was able to testify, the judge had to make sure that the defendant understood that his agreement to testify meant that he would have to be cross-examined, which could potentially put case out of his control. The judge also made sure that the defendant knew he was agreeing to waive his right to remain silent and put it on the record.

The defendant's lawyer asked him many questions about the floor plan of the house and his interactions with the children in the family. The defendant was also asked about his history before moving into the victims' residence and what he did after moving out. He stated that he was living in Tennessee, unable to find work, and asked his cousin if he could move in with him in Toledo. After the defendant moved out, he relocated to California for a job. He later returned to northwest Ohio and subsequently moved in with his mother. The defendant was also asked about his role and responsibilities in the household, to which he responded that he was to babysit his cousin's six children and do some house chores. Finally, the defendant was asked about what the children's daily routine was.

During cross-examination, the defendant was asked many difficult questions, such as what exact events happened when he was alone with the six children, what happened when he and the children would watch movies on the couch together, and what the sleeping arrangements of the children were. The prosecutor also flat-out asked the defendant if he had ever inappropriately touched the victims, to which he responded no. The prosecutor kept asking questions about the charges and allegations pertaining to this case, all of which he continued to deny. The prosecutor found out that the defendant was aware of the charges against him after he returned to northwest Ohio, and stated that the defendant took no initiative to go to the police when he learned about the charges because he knew he was in trouble.

The defendant then testified on his lawyer's redirect. He was asked if he was under any obligation to go come back from California and if California is a faraway place. The defendant answered California is very far away, and that he was under no obligation to return to northwest Ohio; it was all on his own free will. When asked why he didn't make any inquiries to Washington Township police about his charges, the defendant stated that this was because the police didn't come to him and that he was never under any impression that there was an obligation to contact police. The defense then rested its case.

After a brief ten minute break, the judge read the jury its instructions. He explained that the jurors' job is to make a decision of the defendant's guilt based on the evidence presented in the trial and to apply the law to the decision they make. As stated before, until the state proves a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he is innocent.  The instructions stated that the jury must consider the credibility of each witness to weight the evidence, and that a jury can choose to believe or not believe what a witness says. The judge also reminded that indictments against a defendant are not evidence. These were just some of the instructions that the judge gave to the jury, with many more other instructions that they had to follow.

Following the jury instructions were the closing arguments. Made to the jury, these are to summarize and reiterate the points of each side. There are three closing arguments: two from the prosecution and one from the defense. The prosecution always goes first and last.

The prosecution began by stating they had succeeded in proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt just by the testimonies of the three victims. The prosecutor repeated the prosecution's view that the defendant was guilty. She explained how the defendant would be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on each of the six counts by synthesizing and reviewing all of the relevant evidence for the jury to hear. She argued that the defendant was proven guilty by just the testimonies of the boys which corroborated each other, also stating that her victim witnesses were credible because there was no reason to make up the story and go through the unpleasant investigation system for nothing. During this time, she also refuted the defense witness's claim of "interview bias" (for more information about this, see blog post "1-14-2015: The Defense").

In the defense's closing argument, the defense lawyer reminded jurors to make sure the deliberation is fair for the defendant and to separate emotions and sympathy for victims from the actual evidence; as the defense lawyer stated, emotions and sympathy are not evidence. He cited the victims' mother's testimony on Tuesday in which she said she was mad at herself for not having seen the signs that her sons were being abused; the defense lawyer stated that if she didn't see the signs, it could be because the alleged events didn't happen. He also said that testimony from the physician specializing in child abuse was extremely inconclusive, saying that he only made the diagnosis based on the victims' interviews at children services and that a lack of physical evidence from the children from the anal examination renders his testimony useless. Finally, he restated the errors that the children services staff member made in questioning the children, and argued there were many instances of interview bias, which changed and manipulated the answers from what they really were.

The prosecution ended the trial with their second closing argument, in disagreement with the defense's claims. The prosecutor restated to the jury that there were many testimonies and other pieces of evidence that corroborated each other. He dismissed the claims of interview bias as ridiculous, arguing there was no other interest that could have possibly influenced how the victims and their parents answered to the police, to children services, and to the court. Finally, the prosecutor reminded the jury of the physician's testimony that anal tissue is able to repair quickly and normally, which is the reason why he was unable to obtain any physical evidence. That was it. The jury was excused to the jury room to deliberate, and the waiting began.

Finally, after more than three hours of deliberation, I was informed that a verdict was reached. As read by the criminal bailiff, the jury found the defendant guilty on all six counts of rape. After the charges were read, the judge thanked the jury for its service, and court was adjourned. The trial was over. The defendant will be sentenced in the near future.

Today, I learned about how a trial ends, with closing arguments, jury instructions, their deliberation, and a verdict. Of course, sometimes, a jury doesn't end with a verdict, or they do end up with a verdict but it takes them days to deliberate. But the case today was that they gave a verdict. I also reflected upon the important responsibility that jurors have: to weigh the evidence and make a decision to which each and every juror must agree.

If you noticed, besides the use of the judge's name, no other names were used in any of these posts. Although one could easily learn the names of the victims simply by ordering a transcript from the Clerk of Courts of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, I have decided not to mention them out of respect for the family. More information on the case, such as the names of the parties involved, can be found on the page "Appendix to the Trial."