Roses Have Thorns

What's With the Red Hair?

Judge Leona: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I am now going to read to you the law that you must follow in deciding this case. To prove the crime charged against the defendant, the prosecution must prove three things to you:

First, that the defendant drove or took a car belonging to someone else; Second, that the owner did not give the defendant permission to drive or take the car; and Third, that the defendant intended to take away the owner's right to have the car, either permanently or temporarily.

If each of you believes that the prosecution proved all three of these things beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should find the defendant guilty. But if you believe the prosecution did not prove any one of these things beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant not guilty.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean beyond all possible doubt. It means that you must consider all of the evidence and that you are very sure that the charge is true.

Judge Leona: Are you ready with final arguments?

Eloise (Deputy DA): Yes, Your Honor.

Becky (Public Defender): Yes, Your Honor.

Eloise (Deputy DA): Your Honor, and ladies and gentlemen of the jury: The judge has told you that we must prove three things. There is absolutely no question about the first two things we must prove.

First, the defendant was arrested driving a car belonging to the owner of Martinez Car Sales.

Second, the owner testified that no one, including the defendant, had permission to drive or take the Corvette.

Therefore, all we have to prove is that the defendant drove the car and intended to keep it away from the owner for at least a little while. The defendant admitted wanting to drive the Corvette because it was fast. The defendant knew the car was stolen, and says that he even thought about calling the police before driving it. But the defendant didn't even try to walk to a telephone instead of driving the car and didn't even try to stop anywhere between San Ramon and Martinez to call the police. That shows that the defendant intended to keep the car for at least a little while. According to what the judge just told you, that is all we have to prove. Based on the evidence, you must find the defendant guilty.

Becky (Public Defender): Your Honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury: Jeremiah was unlucky to get into a car with a man who had stolen that car. He got into the car because he had never been in a Corvette before. My client's fingerprints were found on the keys because he had to touch them when the officer pulled the car over.

But the prosecution's own expert told you that other fingerprints were found on those keys that could not be identified. I suggest to you that they belong to the real thief: Rick. Jeremiah is an honest person and was only trying to return the car to its owner. If he had meant to keep the car, why would he drive it back to Martinez?

Remember that under the law my client is presumed to be innocent. The prosecution must prove every part of its case beyond a reasonable doubt – that means that you must be very sure. One of the things they must prove is that my client intended to keep the car from the owner.

My client is the only person who knows what he intended, and testified under oath that he wasn't trying to keep the car from the owner, but was trying to return it. The prosecution has presented no real evidence to you to show that this is not true. That means that there is a reasonable doubt and, therefore, you must find him not guilty.

.....

We spent our first two days just cleaning the whole house.

"I made your favorite!" El said while carrying a plate of spam musubi