How can I prepare/word my opening statement in a mock trial me and my government class are doing?

Question

Basically I have to prove this chick is innocent. Supposedly she shook her baby and he died, but I am trying to defend her and say it was the husband, or just provide enough reasonable doubt that was not her.

What should I say?

Answer 1

No greater tragedy can befall a mother then the loss of her child.

A Mothers Love...... Flesh of her flesh..... Blood of her blood.

A mother defends her children with her life if need be, this is instinctual. Hard wired into the mothers very essence..


(Pause and look into the eyes of the jury)

You know that if push came to shove your mother would protect you with her life.

(Point at the defendant, so would my client)

Now we all know that men can become angry, some even violent. Sadly we see this on the news daily, that some men who become blind with rage do horrible things. Some just snap at the smallest things. Small things like a crying baby.
Alot of men don't realize how strong they are and how fragile babys are.

(Eh not too bad :-)

Answer 2

Opening and closing arguments are about telling a story. Technically all you have to do is put holes in the prosecution's story, but a jury is much more likely to be sympathetic if you have a holistic explanation of the case in some way that doesn't implicate the defendant.
There are two general approaches - a) try to convince the jury that your client is trustworthy and a sympathetic person, in which case they will hopefully prefer her account of events, or b) emphasize the technical/legal aspects of the case like "beyond reasonable doubt" and whatever technical language is in the penal code in order to qualify for the crime. EG if someone were being charged with murder, the prosecution would have to prove not only that the defendant did the act, but that the act was premeditated.
If you have studied rhetoric at all, this is the difference between emphasizing ethos and pathos/character and emotion and emphasizing logos/reasoning.
You know your class, so you know which method will be more effective (some groups are really into the legal obligation of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' while others are annoyed by 'nitpicking'; some are really empathic, others are bored by that stuff). For an in-class trial, this may also depend on which witnesses will be more into the activity and thus actually convincing when they answer questions.

For strategy a), emphasize what they will hear from your character witnesses - board member of the elementary PTO, does anything for her kids, whatever you have. Make her seem like to good a person to do that, and her husband as a violent guy who doesn't always have his temper under control or something like that. Obviously, reliant on your

For strategy b), think about what the prosecution actually has to prove in order for this to be a case of whatever she is charged with, and where the case seems to fall short. Then the beginning of your speech emphasizes what those technical requirements are. The rest of the speech is structured as 'prosecution wants you to believe <>, but there is <> problem with that evidence; what if it is the explanation is in fact <>'. You go through the prosecution's story at its weak points, and you build your story after explaining where the prosecution's story is trash.

All other things equal, the ethos strategy is probably better for a domestic violence case. Since most of the key testimony has to come from the defendant and the defense's scapegoat, you need the jury to trust the defendant more than the husband.

Answer 3

Well, I can't write an opening statement for you, but a word of advice regarding the examination of witnesses:

Use their unfamiliarity with the characters to your advantage & try to trip them up. For example: ask questions using the wrong names, and if you get them to agree to a statement about one person when it should've been another & point it out, you'll have the jury in your pocket.