##Meet the defendant.
Your client posted bail and is no longer in custody. You have scheduled to meet him at the county courthouse. You walk up the steps and go inside. The marble floors on the right lead to private meeting rooms where you will meet the defendant in person for the first time. As you walk into the room, you see a well-dressed man in his early to mid-thirties. He is clean-cut other than a five o'clock shadow, and drinking a cup of coffee.
<img src="http://fathominnovations.com/trial/andrew-neel-108081.jpg" width="100%">
^^Photo by Andrew Neel on Unsplash^^
You introduce yourself, "Hi, I'm your attorney, $name."
You and the man sit down privately at the table facing each other and he sighs heavily. A packet of papers labeled "Evidence" sits on the table with your name on it. Per legal requirements, the District Attorney is sharing evidence they are planning to use to prosecute your client.
Your client pounds his fist on the table and says "They searched my car and took things that are not included in those papers!"
##What do you want to do?
###[[Talk To Your Client->Talk To Him]]
###[[Do Not Talk Your Client->Not Talk To Him]]
###[[Reassure Him]]
###[[Talk To Family Members]]
(set: $case to 6)
==>
###Jury Favorability Score: $case##Talk to him.
<span style="color: green;">He notices your directness.</span>
"So, tell me what happened," you say with a positive voice, "and we can start to map out a game plan."
"It’s all a bunch of bull," he exclaims. "I didn’t start it, I wasn’t trying to kill the guy."
"Was this a man you knew?" "Yes," he responds, "he used to be one of my best friends..."
After speaking with the man for almost an hour, several things become clear to you. First, you believe that the man is telling the truth and that he is innocent of intentional murder. He did kill the man, but he did not mean to, and there could be reason to believe it was in self-defense. However, the man he killed was an old friend and had dated your client's current girlfriend several years ago. It could be easy for a jury to assume motive given that fact. Your client and the man had a long friendship, but it was a complicated one.
Your client and the victim had been at the bar with your client's current girlfriend and a fight broke out between the two men. Your client claims that with no provocation, the deceased tried to hit him with a broken beer bottle. This led to a bigger fight, in which the victim hit his head on a table and was killed instantly. There is no video or other digital evidence, but there were eyewitnesses. Keep in mind, it is not your job to "crack the case." You believe your client, and his story, but for all intents and purposes it would not matter because your job is to make the state prove their charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
###Next, [[choose your argument->Choose Your Argument]].
(set: $case to $case + 1)
(set: $choice1 to "talk to him")
==>
###Jury Favorability Score: $case
##Do not talk to him.
<span style="color: red;">He seems irritated that you are ignoring him.</span>
You have decided that there is nothing more to learn from him, and your philosophy is that it is better not to know "too much." You just want to put on a simple defense, uncomplicated by too many details.
###Time to [[move on.->Choose Your Argument]]
(set: $case to $case - 1)
(set: $choice1 to "not talk to him")
==>
###Jury Favorability Score: $case##Reassure him.
<span style="color: green;">He notices your kindness.</span>
"Don't worry, we are going to figure all of this out. I'm going to do my best to defend you well."
You wonder about his family. However, you want to keep the man focused on what happened that night. You have limited time to prepare his defense.
[Ask about his family?]<ask|
(click: ?ask)[ (replace: ?ask)[You decide to explore further.
"Is it just you or do you have family here with you?"
The man points over to the right, and his family is standing off to the side, looking in your direction. You wave at them and they walk over to the table. You notice his mother, and what looks to be his two sisters. They are crying and you are not sure they will add to the defense, but you wonder if they will have anything to add.
[[You decide to talk to his family members.->Talk To Family Members]]
] ]
The man notices your kindness. "Thank you, I really appreciate that. This has been one big (text-style: "blur")[nightmare]."
##[[Move on.->Choose Your Argument]]
(set: $case to $case + 1)
(set: $choice1 to "reassure him")
==>
###Jury Favorability Score: $case##Talk to his family.
(set: $case to $case + 1)
<span style="color: #FFFF00;">This could prove useful.</span>
You talk with his family members. They are all supportive and believe his alibi.
They claim that he was acting in self-defense and that they know of instances in the past where the victim was violent without provocation.
###[[Time to choose your argument->Choose Your Argument]]
(set: $choice1 to "talk to his family")
==>
###Jury Favorability Score: $case##Choose a jury.
You must now choose a jury of your client’s peers to participate in the case. Keep in mind, you need to choose a jury that will be most favorable to your client, so be thoughtful when considering their political and socio-economic views, as well as their backgrounds.
<img src="http://fathominnovations.com/trial/christian-langballe-78684.jpg" width="100%">
^^Photo by Christian Langballe on Unsplash^^
##$name, choose a jury.
These jury pools depict those leanings the potential jurists self-identified in their pre-trial questionnaires:
###[[Liberal]]
Jurors who identify as liberal are often considered more lenient in sentencing. They are typically against the death penalty.
###[[Independent]]
An independent jurist is seen as more analytical and will listen carefully to your defense arguments and to the prosecution.
###[[Conservative]]
A potential jurist who identifies as conservative will generally give out longer, tougher sentences. They are typically pro-death penalty.
==>
###Jury Favorability Score: $case##Liberal
<span style="color: green;">Good choice - they will be lenient.</span>
This pool is a particularly liberal jury. They will make decisions based on their political and social views, so keep in mind liberal views will affect their decisions and opinions.
###[[Time to start the trial.->The Trial]]
(set: $case to $case + 1)
(set: $choice3 to "choose a liberal jury")
==>
###Jury Favorability Score: $case##Independent
<span style="color: #FFFF00;">They are open to considering both sides...</span>
This pool is a particularly independent jury. This does not mean they do not have strong opinons, but rather that their opinions are not easily definable by a particular political party or label.
###[[Time to start the trial.->The Trial]]
(set: $choice3 to "choose an independent jury")
==>
###Jury Favorability Score: $case##Conservative
<span style="color: red;">Be wary: sometimes conservative jurors are eager to convict.</span>
This pool is a particularly conservative jury. Their political and social views will affect their decisions and opinions, keep this in mind for your arguments.
###[[Time to start the trial.->The Trial]]
(set: $case to $case - 1)
(set: $choice3 to "choose a conservative jury")
==>
###Jury Favorability Score: $case##Choose your argument.
$name, you must now choose how you will defend your client in court. Given the information you now know, what way do you think will work best? You will not be able to return and take another look at these after choosing a jury, so make a wise choice.
<img src="http://fathominnovations.com/trial/mari-helin-tuominen-38313.jpg" width="100%">
^^Photo by Mari Helin Tuominen on Unsplash^^
Here is an overview of the different ways you can defend. Keep in mind what happened and the evidence on hand, and remember that you will need to pick a jury that will respond well to this line of argumentation.
##It's time to decide, $name.
##What approach will you take?
###[[Insanity]]
You decide to argue your client is not responsible due to temporary or permanent mental disease at the time of the act.
###[[Move To Dismiss]]
You decide to argue the DA's withholding of material evidence taken during an unlawful seizure is grounds for a dismissal of all charges.
###[[Self-Defense]]
You decide to argue your client acted reasonably to defend himself against the deceased, who was the aggressor.
###[[Alibi]]
You decide to argue something "creative" - that there is no real evidence your client was there that night, given all the patrons in the bar were drinking and cannot be relied upon as witnesses, and your client's girlfriend will testify he was with her somewhere else.
###[[2nd or 3rd Degree Murder]]
You decide to argue although your client is responsible for the death, it was only a voluntary manslaughter (3rd degree murder) as an understandable crime of passion, and alternatively, was a non-premeditated killing and not intentional (2nd degree murder.)
==>
###Jury Favorability Score: $case##Insanity
<span style="color: green;">Nice, $name. This might work.</span>
You choose to defend your client based on the fact that he was temporarily or permanently insane and therefore cannot be held responsible for his actions in a court of law, and instead should be sent to a mental institution until he is healthy.
###[[Time to choose a jury.->Choose A Jury]]
(set: $case to $case + 1)
(set: $choice2 to "plea insanity")
==>
###Jury Favorability Score: $case##Move to dismiss.
<span style="color: #FFFF00;">A risky move, $name.</span>
You ask the judge to dismiss the case based on the prosecutor suppressing evidence and violating the 4th amendment ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...") given his car was searched without a warrant and investigation materials were not shared with you.
$name, the judge hears your arguments, but finds the items not shared were not material to the case, and does not grant your Motion to Dismiss.
###[[Time to choose a jury.->Choose A Jury]]
(set: $choice2 to "move to dismiss")
==>
###Jury Favorability Score: $case##Self-defense.
<span style="color: green;">Good choice, $name.</span>
You choose to defend your client based on the fact that he was acting in self-defense, did not use excessive violence, and did not start or plan this altercation.
###[[Time to choose a jury.->Choose A Jury]]
(set: $case to $case + 1)
(set: $choice2 to "claim self-defense")
==>
###Jury Favorability Score: $case##Offer an alibi.
<span style="color: red;">Are you sure this is the right approach, $name?</span>
You decide to defend your client based on the fact that he was not there, it was in fact someone else entirely in the bar that night. You argue there are no sober witnesses to prove otherwise.
###[[Time to choose a jury.->Choose A Jury]]
(set: $case to $case - 1)
(set: $choice2 to "depend on his alibi")
==>
###Jury Favorability Score: $case##2nd/3rd-degree murder.
<span style="color: #FFFF00;">Hmm. There's a chance, $name.</span>
You choose to defend your client based on the fact that he did not commit 1st degree murder as he is being accused of, but a lesser degree of murder (2nd or 3rd degree) that does not include pre-determined intent. He either was provoked to a crime of passion such that any reasonable person would have harmed another, and in any event, he had no intention to end the victim's life.
###[[Time to choose a jury.->Choose A Jury]]
(set: $choice2 to "argue for 2nd degree murder")
==>
###Jury Favorability Score: $case(alert:"This is it! The trial is about to begin. I hope your choices were smart!")
##The trial.
During the trial, $name, you will need to submit evidence, including testimony. This could include calling eyewitnesses, the girlfriend, and/or the defendant to give accounts of what happened that night. Choose, based on what you have learned so far, who you would like to bring to the stand as witnesses for the defense.
<img src="http://fathominnovations.com/trial/courtroom.jpg" width="100%">
^^Photo from Shutterstock^^
Before the trial begins, you need to decide who you will be calling to the stand for questioning. You know you do not want to question every person involved, and you have narrowed it down to three options.
##Choose your approach.
###[[Defendant Alone]]
###[[Only Eyewitnesses]]
###[[Defendant and Girlfriend]]
==>
###Jury Favorability Score: $case##Defendant alone.
<span style="color: red;">This was the wrong choice, $name.</span>
With the defendant alone on the stand, it is true he side of the story can be stated clearly by him, and you would be making sure there are not varying accounts of the story, at least through your witnesses.
However, because you only have one person on the stand, you have bet everything on your client’s credibility. The prosecution called the girlfriend and eyewitnesses, making the jurors believe they must have been negative for your defendant. You should have controlled their testimony better by calling them yourself.
###[[Pick your closing arguments.->Closing Arguments]]
(set: $case to $case - 1)
(set: $choice4 to "call the defendant alone")
==>
###Jury Favorability Score: $case##Only eyewitnesses.
<span style="color: green;">Great decision, $name.</span>
With only eyewitnesses on the stand, you are able to build a clear picture of exactly what happened that night at the bar. Even though eyewitnesses can get minor facts mixed up, they are seen as more credible than witnesses who are defending themselves, or who have an "axe to grind." This was a good choice!
###[[Pick your closing arguments.->Closing Arguments]]
(set: $case to $case + 1)
(set: $choice4 to "call only eyewitnesses")
==>
###Jury Favorability Score: $case##Defendant and girlfriend.
<span style="color: red;">Uh oh, $name.</span>
With the personal life of the defendant being called into question, because of the history between his girlfriend and the deceased, you felt this combination could give the judge and jury a chance to witness the relationship between the two. However, emotional topics can sometimes just complicate cases, and do not always positively affect those assessing their credibility.
Unfortunately here, this happens and the jury was not impressed. It would have been better to call dispassionate witnesses in this case. Additionally, out of emotion and confusion, the girlfriend testified he was with her at a movie during the time of the killing, when she never mentioned this in earlier statements.
###[[Pick your closing arguments.->Closing Arguments]]
(set: $case to $case - 1)
(set: $girlfriend to 1)
(set: $choice4 to "call the defendant and his girlfriend")
==>
###Jury Favorability Score: $case##The verdict.
(set: _bold to (text-style:'bold'))
The jury has returned after two days of deliberation. The defendant is sweating as you wait for the verdict to be read.
_bold[Based on your choices to $choice1, $choice2, $choice3, $choice4, and $choice5, the jury has deliberated and reached a decision.]
The jury has found the defendant
(if: $case is 12)[
###not guilty!
Your client has been found not guilty of the crimes of which he was accused. He will walk free. Journalists mob you as you leave the courthouse, and you become famous overnight!
](if: $case is 11)[
###not guilty!
Your client has been found not guilty of the crimes of which he was accused. He will walk free. Journalists mob you as you leave the courthouse, and you become famous overnight!
](if: $case is 10)[
###not guilty!
Your client has been found not guilty of the crimes of which he was accused. He is a free man due to your great work!
](if: $case is 9)[
###not guilty!
Your client has been found not guilty of the crimes of which he was accused. He is a free man due to your great work!
](if: $case is 8)[
###not guilty!
Your client has been found not guilty of the crimes of which he was accused. He is a free man due to your great work!
](if: $case is 7)[
###not guilty!
Your client has been found not guilty of the crimes of which he was accused. He is a free man due to your great work!
](if: $case is 6)[
###not guilty!
Your client has been found not guilty of the crimes of which he was accused. He is a free man due to your great work!
](if: $case is 5)[
###guilty!
The jury finds the defendant guilty only of 3rd degree murder/involuntary manslaughter! The judge sentences him 1 year in prison.
](if: $case is 4)[
###guilty!
The jury finds the defendant guilty only of 3rd degree murder/involuntary manslaughter! The judge sentences him 3 years in prison.
](if: $case is 3)[
###guilty!
The jury finds the defendant guilty of 2nd degree murder! The judge sentences him to 5 years in prison.
](if: $case is 2)[
###guilty!
The jury finds the defendant guilty of first degree murder that was pre-meditated, and is sentenced by the judge to life in prison.
](if: $case is 1)[
###guilty!
The jury finds the defendant guilty of first degree murder that was pre-meditated, and is sentenced by the judge to the death penalty.
]
(if: $girlfriend is 1)[
###But wait!
The judge notices the girlfriend's testimony directly contradicted her sworn statement. He declares an immediate mistrial.
###[[It's time to start over->Trial Tactics]]
]##Closing arguments.
Here's your chance to persuade the jury. You need to choose a presentation style that will serve your client best.
<img src="http://fathominnovations.com/trial/helloquence-51716.jpg" width="100%">
^^Photo by Helloquence on Unsplash^^
###[[Make an emotional appeal.->Emotional Appeal]]
###[[Argue a lack of proof. ->State The Facts]]
###[[Contradict every point.->Aggressive]]
==>
###Jury Favorability Score: $case##Make an emotional appeal.
<span style="color: green;">This works!</span>
You choose to rely on juror's emotions and desire not to see a man punished without proof. You go over the testimony, but you paint a picture of the defendant as the actual victim, who has been thrust into an unfair situation.
Good choice! This is exactly what the jury needed to hear. They were thinking this all along, but needed to hear you put it all together to get a picture of the defendant's humanity.
###[[Ready for the verdict?->The Verdict]]
(set: $case to $case + 1)
(set: $choice5 to "make an emotional appeal to the jury")
==>
###Jury Favorability Score: $case##State the facts.
<span style="color: #FFFF00;">The jury is not moved.</span>
You decide to simply state the facts of the case and let the chips fall where they may. You feel the jurors have heard enough evidence and testimony, and will be weary by now.
In this case, the jury could have used some kind of motivation to find in favor of the defendant. This choice did not hurt your case, but it did not help either.
###[[Ready for the verdict?->The Verdict]]
(set: $choice5 to "simply state the facts")
==>
###Jury Favorability Score: $case##An aggressive defense.
<span style="color: red;">Dangerous choice.</span>
You attack the prosecution and all the witnesses. You decide to go "all out" in your zealous defense and challenge every piece of evidence.
In this case, the jurors wanted to like your defendant, but you gave them reason to feel the aggression through you. They needed to see the defendant as human and someone who was put in a terrible situation. Here, this was not the best choice!
###[[Ready for the verdict?->The Verdict]]
(set: $case to $case - 1)
(set: $choice5 to "make aggressive closing remarks")
==>
###Jury Favorability Score: $case(set: $name to (prompt: "Type your first name, please:", ""))
##$name, you're hired!
A murder case in Dallas, Texas is your next case. A man was killed in a bar fight, and it is your job to defend the alleged murderer. He was arrested immediately after the killing. Your client has instructed you to enter a plea of not guilty. Other than that brief instruction, you have had no contact with him, but you must now defend your client to the best of your abilities, whether you personally believe he is guilty or not.
During the game, you'll be making strategy choices that will be postive, neutral, or negative for your client. A total of 12 points are available, with 0-5 being guilty verdicts with varying penalties, and 6-12 being not guilty verdicts. Because all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty, you'll begin with a Jury Favorability score of 6 and attempt to gain more points than you lose with your decisions! You'll also be guided by red/negative, yellow/neutral, or green/positive feedback statements throughout the game.
###[[Ready to start, $name?->Meet The Defendant]]=><=
##Trial
##Tactics:
###An Interactive
###Fiction
==>
Logan McClure
Elements of Media, Summer 2017
<==
##[[Start->First Meeting]]