Press. S1 Ep11: Closing Arguments
Oct 18, 2017
Mr Cortez, a defense attorney arguing consent and reasonable conduct, and ADA Laherty, a prosecutor framing the case as intentional harm, present conflicting closing views. They debate intent, safety steps, timing of the 911 call, missing evidence like knot details, and jurors wrestle with emotional toll, unanimity and public scrutiny during deliberations.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Closing Arguments Shape How Evidence Is Framed
- Closing arguments let lawyers frame evidence with emotional language while still constrained by rules.
- ADA Laherty used vivid analogies and explicit scenarios to argue that Samantha's acts transcended negligence into murder.
Defense Recasts Evidence As Consensual Risk
- Defense Attorney Mr Cortez reframed the same facts as consent and risk inherent in BDSM rather than murderous intent.
- He emphasized Troy's agency, safety measures she took, and her call to police to argue against guilt.
Instructions Reinforce Evidence Only And Unanimity
- Jury instructions repeatedly stress impartiality, evidence-only verdicts, and unanimity to protect defendant rights.
- The judge reminded jurors that failure to follow law equals miscarriage of justice and verdicts must be unanimous.