PART 8

PRACTICE ORAL EXAMINATION ATTACHMENT

PART 2

FCICE Practice Simultaneous Monologue – Marked Copy    

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you now have the very narrow responsibility of deciding the case before you^1B from all the evidence that's been admitted.  You must examine whether or not the Government has proven the charge^2D that it has leveled^3C against my client.  This is not a question^4B of judging my client's character.  His conduct merits reproof,^5C but we're not here to determine whether or not we want him as a neighbor.  Instead,^6I we're here to determine whether or not we are to take away his freedom.

The criminal indictment^7D charges that the defendant did knowingly and intentionally^8D distribute crack cocaine.  Now, based on the testimony of law enforcement^9C and every single other witness^10D in this case, there is no evidence that Joaquín Morales^11G ever delivered,^12A distributed, sold, gave, or, in any other way transferred drugs to anyone else.  The Government agrees that he is a crack cocaine addict.  Defense Exhibit^13D No. 4 is records, reports from experts in which the diagnosis^14C is cocaine dependency.^15C  The Government's position, however,^16I is that he can turn it on and off^17E whenever he wants to.^18A  The Government wants to persist in telling you the reason for his trip down^19B to Nashville was to buy drugs and bring them back to Centerville to distribute them.  Testimony has shown that he went to Nashville and visited with^20B his family.  His mother wasn't happy or proud about testifying about her crack-addicted son, but she came in and testified that she met him in Nashville because his first cousin^21C had died of AIDS.^22C  He was close to^23E  his cousin, and his cousin never told him that he had a life-threatening disease.  He's angry; he's upset.  The physical evidence that you have is a very small quantity of crack cocaine, 2.4 grams.^24G  A minuscule^25C amount, consistent with using crack cocaine.  You should consider that in determining^26A whether or not it was his intent^27B to deliver or sell it,^28A or if it was his intent to use it.  The defendant testified about things that one would not be proud of,^29A robbing people, burglarizing^30A houses and having homosexual sex to get money to get crack.  The counselor describes him as a client who appears to be open and truthful.^31C  There has been nothing here that has been held back.^32E  The Government doesn't even go through the effort to see whether or not he has instruments of dealing in his house or if there's additional crack cocaine there.  They can't even get a warrant^33D to go find that out.  They wouldn't even lift a finger^34E to bring in evidence of crack cocaine dealing, such as scales,^35C beepers, pagers, whatever those things are.^36A They came up with experts, experts^37H in pursuing crack dealers.  When my client was arrested, he didn't have a dime,^38E  he didn't have identification; he didn't even^39H have a wallet.  Zip.^40J  Another expert said you need^41A a razor to break it up^42B to put it in different bags to measure it properly.^43H  He doesn't have the ability to break it down or, at least, he doesn't have the instruments to break it down and put it in bags for sale.  Don't you need money to get drugs to resell?  A drug dealer^44C would have^45A money; and wouldn't a person who is a crack addict, a deadbeat, nearly a street person, be a person without money?  Wouldn't that be my client, the 32-year-old man bumming^46J 50 bucks^47J from his own mother to go out and get another 20-dollar rock of cocaine to smoke?  They're the experts, so they can tell you where people are dealing and who they are, yet they can't put one single person on the stand^48D who can testify that the defendant gave them even 1/1000th^49G of a gram of crack cocaine.  Not one person.  If he's a dealer, then they have to be able to produce for you something to indicate that he has a customer, like lists of people who owe him money for drugs that he's given them, and telephone numbers.  He doesn't have a phone; he doesn't have a car.  Isn't it logical that people get into drug dealing to make^50B money?  He testified as to why he was on this trip.  He answered the questions during a vigorous^51H cross examination.^52D   He said that he lied to the police because he was afraid of being carted off^53J to jail.  And he was, because he had crack cocaine on him.^54I  His testimony is credible and it fits^55C with what he was doing at the time.  The Judge will instruct you that if you find that there's no proof that the defendant intended^56A to deliver crack cocaine, then you can find him guilty of a lesser-included offense, simple possession.  The evidence in this case is way short^57H of proving crack dealing.  In fact, the proof is that he is a crack addict.  It's reprehensible; it's inexcusable, but he had it for his own use.  Do your duty and follow the instructions of this Court.  Find my client not guilty.  Thank you.

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO SCORING INFORMATION.