[Peace-discuss] the Closing argument of the Defense in the Patrick Thompson case

[Barbara kessel]

Kirchner talked first of the presumption of innocence and the burden of
proof that the State had not met.

Then he painted a picture of the discussing the credibility of the only
evidence against him, hopefulness of that time in the life of Patrick and
Maria because they had gotten grants to start up Veya. Maria had just
finished an advanced degree and Patrick was ready to start Parkland College
and Patrick had finished his first documentary for Veya on racial profiling.
It had shown on UPTV in May or 2004. The implication was "Why would he?"

Then he turned to Why would she? ...make up such a claim. He was careful to
say that he did not know why and that it was not a burden of the defendant
to prove motive."It is not a presumption that a complaint of any kind is
based on truth. The only presumption in the justice system is the
presumption of innocence of any defendant."

However, by way of  discussing the only "evidence" against him - her story -
he was able to label it her "evolving story." She was very late to work that
day (August 24, 2004) and she was already in trouble for being late at work.
Each of four people she encountered within that first couple of hours at
work, including the reporting police officer, had testified to a different
story with a different location of attack and a different account of what
the attacker did, going from a non-sexual attempt to pull her out of her
house to home invasion and groping. Next in her testimony in the three
trials, her story kept on morphing.

The defense lawyer countered the Prosecutor's claim that a wife's testimony
is biased and does not count for much by re-picturing their life together
and their dream of work in their community with at-risk kids and the
intimacy of their matching descriptions of getting up in the morning. He and
she were talking to each other, always in sight or sound of one another in
the time frame that this act supposedly occurred while he was ironing his
clothes for the day and focused on getting to Parkland College to get his
books on time before the line got too long.  Supposedly he took time out
from this to run next door and assault his neighbor, both of whom testified
that they did not know one another.

Finally there was the matter of the one piece of physical evidence there is,
the splint that Patrick had on his index finger from the Sunday before the
Tuesday of the "incident" until he was taken to jail the following day and
it was removed. The nurse had to make a new one for his finger, without
metal in it because his finger was still sore from an accident at the IMC.
The nurse from the jail testified to that. Patrick and his wife both
testified that it was so painful that he said Ow whenever it touched
something. Kirshner's point  was that the pain made the idea of a struggle
with another person hard to imagine but also that the alleged victim in all
her accounts had never mentioned the splint on his hand.

Both the Prosecution and the Defense agreed that the lack of police
investigation of the crime scene or the neighbors (did they hear her
supposed screams in a building with the sound-proofing of cardboard? no one
asked. ) was an astonishing anomaly.
* * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  *
* * **

The jury was out only 75 minutes before they came back with the verdict of
innocence. One has to wonder in a case like this why it took three trials
and a hearing to get a third trial after the guilty verdict in the second
trial. Had it stood, Patrick would now be spending upwards of six years in
prison (mandatory six) .

The mood was extremely joyful afterwards, but it is not yet time to have a
party for the criminal justice system. Consider that Patrick finally had the
best lawyer that money could have bought for free with costs raised by
supporters like some of our readers. How would justice be different if every
accused person had a good lawyer, or to be realistic, how about a set of
public defenders with a reasonable case load instead of three times the
amount recommended by the ABA. American Bar Association.

Judge Clem and the jury are to be commended for their attention and
dedication to following the principles of our legal system.

We urge other notetakers (official or not) to submit their notes to this
discussion even after the fact. There is much to be learned from this
communal experience of the justice system.

Barbara Kessel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080516/56a83d7a/attachment-0001.htm