Closing Defense Statement from Mock Trial
Posted for your comments or approval is the “Defense Attorney’s” closing statement to the Jury at this year’s Mock Trial. The case involved an altercation between two hockey players; had I been a participant I would have been totally convinced of the Defendant’s position
Closing Statement:
First, I would like to thank the jury for its dedication and patience throughout the proceeding.
The defense will conclude by stating why its client, Mr. Chris LePuck, is not liable for the sufferings of Mr. Pat Dunn, which the plaintiff insists, are the defendant’s responsibility. The defense presents three main reasons to the jury as to why the defendant is not liable.
Firstly, the defendant was acting only out of the impulse of self-preservation when he struck the plaintiff on the head with the hockey stick. The defendant had been brutally struck in the face by the plaintiff’s heavy, hard hockey glove and, on top of losing his helmet to the blow which gave a natural feeling of violation and of an oppressive physical threat of bodily harm, the defendant was actually disoriented by the unjustifiable, powerful blow. The defendant’s disorientation, which was induced by the plaintiff, caused him to strike the plaintiff on the head. This was not my clients intended target; he simply struck to stop Mr. Dunn, not to injure him. Mr. LePuck has no record of violence in the past and struck Mr. Dunn only because he felt seriously threatened by him and at the probability of taking another blow from that glove. Mr. LePuck’s defending of himself by striking Mr. Dunn was completely justifiable. My client was within his legal right to defend himself.
Secondly, not only did the plaintiff instigate the conflict by tripping Mr. LePuck in the first place, he also brought the conflict to a point where serious bodily harm became a factor. He attacked my client out of anger without restraint, this much is obvious as to how my client’s helmet was thrown from his head. In addition to this form of battery upon my client, Mr. Dunn didn’t simply punch Mr. LePuck with his fist, he used a weapon in this case, the hockey glove. He assaulted Mr. LePuck with a weapon with which he was quite familiar. Mr. Dunn has been playing hockey since the age of 8 and knows that a hockey glove would pack quite a punch, if used in such a way. How can Mr. LePuck be held liable for defending himself against an attacker with a weapon?
Lastly, Mr. Dunn has had a history of head injuries. The blood clot, which he sustained due to a bike accident, was quite a serious one. With an injury like that, it is only logical to attempt to prevent it from getting worse by using appropriate protective measures. Playing a sport like hockey without a helmet and considering his past injury, Mr. Dunn was acting out of nothing short of absolute negligence. Even if the league didn’t require a helmet, it’s his responsibility to avoid situations of obvious harm. If the plaintiff had been responsible and had protected his already injured head, this event wouldn’t have happened. Why should Mr. LePuck be liable for the consequences of Mr. Dunn’s aggression and negligence?
The defense asks the jury to find the defendant not liable of the charges placed upon him by the plaintiff. I am sure the jury will act in the favor of justice.
The defense rests its case!