I have been practicing criminal defense law since the very first year of my legal practice which began in 1989. My first case was a Federal conspiracy to buy and sell cocaine case. I was appointed to defend one of five defendants. I diligently researched the facts related to my client, even driving over two hundred miles to his home town to investigate certain issues. My investigation convinced me that my client was innocent, but I had a big problem. He had a previous felony conviction and if I allowed him to testify the prosecutor could and would introduce evidence of his past guilt and possibly taint the jury against him.

So, I decided not to allow my client to testify. Typically I allow my clients who maintain their innocence to testify at court  in order to convince the jury of their truthfulness and innocence. This time I did not do that. It seemed too risky and I was advised by old-time attorneys to not allow him to testify. After all, this was my first year of law practice! What did I know about criminal trial strategy? Not much!

The introduction of evidence by both sides ended. The prosecutor made his closing statement and then each of the five attorneys made closing arguments for their clients. I made mine last of all. I argued that the prosecutor was required by law to prove all three elements of the particular two crimes charged. I wrote on a chalk board, “A + B + C = Guilty” only if you know that my client committed acts A, B, and C.  I further argued that the Prosecutor had only shown my client had committed act A, but not act B, and not act C.

Then I argued, “Think of this as an algebra problem.  The equation is a + b + c  = 6.  You know that a = 3, but what is b?  You don’t know.  It could be 2, or 1, or anything else.  What is c?  You don’t know.  It could be any number since you don’t know what b is.  Now consider the Defendant.  You know that A is true, but you don’t know if B is true.  And you don’t know if C is true.  In order to convict the Defendant of this crime you have to know beyond a reasonable doubt that both B and C are true in addition to A being true. But you don’t know that.  You can’t know that because the prosecutor introduced no evidence about B and C as they relate to the Defendant.  You must therefore find Defendant `Not Guilty.'”

The next day the jury came back with its verdicts for all five Defendants.  The verdicts were: Defendant 1 – Guilty, Guilty; Defendant 2 – Guilty, Guilty, Defendant 3 – Guilty, Guilty, Defendant 4 – Guilty, Guilty,  Defendant 5 (my client) – Not Guilty, Not Guilty

If you are not guilty of a crime you have been charged with then call me, Glenn Hall, to represent you. If you are guilty and want the best plea deal possible, then call me.

Attorney Glenn Hall, Criminal Defense Attorney since 1989, 573-729-2229