The trial of George for the murder of Lenny was very complicated. It was clear to me there was no malice or premeditation in this murder case. However, justice had to be served for the loss of life. I was the third prosecuting attorney in this case and felt the sentencing was fair and just.
During the trial there were several witnesses who testified for both the defense and prosecution. However, few were of real help and did not provide strong testimony. If anything, I think the defense witnesses helped the prosecution more because most of them cared for Lenny and believed that George should be found guilty for what he had done. The defense couldn’t provide strong evidence that proved George was protecting Lenny from the angry mod that wanted to kill him. This allowed for the prosecution to easily find George guilty of voluntary manslaughter.
After we had time to cross examine the witnesses and George, it was time for the jury to make a decision on whether George should be found innocent or guilty. His fate was now in their hands. Deliberation was quick, which usually is not a good thing for the defense. I was a little worried the jurors would feel sorry for George because Lenny was his best friend, but that wasn’t the case. The jury found George guilty of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced him to 12 years in prison. From the very beginning I felt this would be an easy case to win, especially if the prosecution went for Manslaughter vs. murder in the 1st or 2nd degree.
Representing the prosecution was a satisfying role and I was pleased with the results. I really enjoyed playing the role because I got to cross examine the witnesses and George, and make the closing argument for our side.
In conclusion, I think the trial was swift and fair. Although the story is tragic the sentencing was appropriate for the crime committed.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document