Chapter 3. Investigation §1. Books for studying

In almost all books which are used for studying in universities of the USA or the UK we can define a plenty of material that can be used as the material for investigation. I used “The lawyers English language coursebook⁷” by Catherine Mason to investigate.

The purpose of this investigation is to understand what words and features of law debate are given to the students in Cambridge University. For that we should look through the whole book to understand what tasks and explanations are given. The whole book includes 18 chapters and 415 pages (without contents and answer key).

From this we can mention 127 pages with explanations. All are given on clear and understandable language, with no more professional terminology that is needed. A few paragraphs in the beginning of each chapter give an instruction to that type of work that should be done (Pic. 1). Also, in the end of each chapter or subtitle, titles of books which should also be read are written, numbers of pages in them and what questions must be answered while reading.

The most usual task is document investigation. This task is necessary for studying how to define document mistakes and learn how to write them in the right way. In this part of tasks students also can practice in document and linguistic prosecution. Some of tasks are turned to comparing one sort of legal documentation to another one (common to civil judgment)(Pic. 2).

All of the speaking tasks can be divided into two parts. The attorney’s practicing and prosecutor’s practicing. In order to legal debate the main speech of attorney and prosecutor don’t have much difference. The thing is in asking questions, having law debate and pleadings. In the context of civil judgment, attorney has to have a speech which must include:

• Material facts. Attorney may not include the conclusion to all the previous speeches or all;

• Particulars are not pleadings. You have to add your own thoughts and speech;

• You cannot just plead that the defendant was negligent and give particulars of the breach. Some judges, most of them now, will use their permission not to count attorney’s pleading if it will go such a way;

• Get up to the given structure if you are not sure about your own ability to take it right way according to your experience;

• Don’t admit allegations that are not pleaded. As defendant you should not plead “the defendant admits that the defendant was a fellow of the Royal Australian College of Surgeons”. That is not what is pleaded against you. You deny that the defendant was a member and plead that he or she says that he or she was “at all material times a fellow".

§2. Attorney’s Conclusion Argument

As I said in the first part of my investigation there are several thing that have to be said in the Conclusion of the case. Up those rules in the second part of my investigation I’m going to make my own attorney’s speech. this one can be used in any courts and cases.

So now I’m going to put up attorneys closing arguments like if I had to take in front of the legal counsel. We will take a case of random Mr. Smith, judged for a murder of Jane Wilson. We will try to prove he is not guilty.

“Ladies and Gentlemen, The death of Jane Wilson was truly tragic. It should never have happened. But today the Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt - because my client is Not Guilty. As the instructions spell out – a reasonable doubt is such a doubt as would cause a reasonable person to hesitate to act in matters of importance to themselves. This case is replete with issues that would make any reasonable person hesitate to act.

As I said in our Opening Statement - “A wise man does not build his home upon a foundation of quicksand.” The foundation of the Prosecution’s case is an inadequate initial investigation and a biased follow up. Look at the initial police report. Critical eyewitnesses were not interviewed at the time of the murder. Sky Willow was working the stall right across from the murder. If he had been interviewed, the police would have known about the Zucchini incident. Fingerprints and DNA were never taken from the steering wheel of Ms Willon’s car. They could have confirmed that someone else drove the car. Police even failed to maintain the integrity of evidence seized – they lost the feather off the magic wand. This police incompetence would make any reasonable person to hesitate in important matters in their own lives.

Let’s next consider the testimony of Dr. Cavanaugh. She accepted Exhibit 5 as accurate only because it was made by a police officer. She was willing to render an opinion on legal cause of death without any factual basis. The doctor’s bias is obvious. How could any reasonable person rely on the doctor’s opinion about medical cause of death - after listening to his/her opinion about legal cause of death?

What about the follow up investigation? The Prosecution wants you to believe my client committed this crime because he knew the murder plans, was present at the market and never contacted police before or after the act. Well, all those facts are also true about Bailey Leightenen. Who was also there, who also knew. And he was not confident enough to make a call. People who get in suac a situation usually got nervous, they often fail to report what they know because of fear, misplaced loyalty or other reasons. It does not mean they committed the crime themselves. The Prosecution’s willingness to jump to such illogical conclusions should also cause reasonable people to hesitate in this case. 

Finally, The Prosecution has totally failed to recognize that Jackson Smith was only 16 years when these events occurred. He was not a sophisticated adult with extensive life experience. Even so, he handled him self-esteem issues properly. But sixteen year old teenagers do not make perfect decisions. Sometimes they panic. Sometimes they rely on others when they should act themselves. Thankfully you have brought your common sense with you today. Putting Jackson Smith’s actions in proper context is one more reason that you jurors should hesitate in this case.

Member of the jury, Justice will not be done by convicting the wrong person. Justice demands that you return a verdict of Not Guilty. Do not punish this remarkable young man for something he did not do.”

As you can see I followed the rules accurately. In the first part of my speech I turned to prosecutor’s argument. I turned back to the exhibits that were shown at the case. Also all the things that were mentioned attorney have to turn in the way, that will be the best for his client.