Richard and Anthony heavily relied on their training from the Keenan Ball College courses and their focus group sessions to steer the direction of this case. Richard delivered a KBC Opening. He spent a majority of the opening on their safety rule which said that drivers must always stop at red lights. The theme of the case centered on the repentance argument. Richard and Anthony observed the jury nodding their heads when they argued that it was important to admit when you do something wrong, ensure it never happens again, and then pay for the damages caused. After the opening, Richard and Anthony followed their order of proof. They let the first responder cop set the scene of the wreck, confirm their statistic, and explain that running red lights is a problem in the community. Anthony then went on to examine the eyewitnesses. The eyewitnesses described what they saw and helped to polarize the defendant’s testimony. The defendant claimed originally that his view of the traffic light was blocked by a train bridge. When pressed by Richard on the stand, the defendant stated he “ran a green light.” …show more content…
Richard also showed the jury that Defendant was willing to say anything to deny responsibility. During discovery, Richard and Anthony learned that the defendant received a speeding ticket from the wreck; they then found out that the defendant was able to get the ticket dismissed. Richard and Anthony used this information to show that the defendant was already “cut a break” and argued that conduct rewarded is conduct repeated. They further argued that the criminal justice system had failed the community and asked the jury not to let that happen