Michelle Khare Defends a Simulated Murder Trial After One Day of Training
Michelle Khare
Can someone with no legal background learn enough in a single day to defend a client in a murder trial against an experienced prosecutor? On this episode of Challenge Accepted, Michelle Khare plays defense attorney in a staged but carefully structured trial. The courtroom has a real Superior Court judge, twelve jurors, actors playing the defendant and witnesses, and a state prosecutor with decades of experience on the other side. Michelle is coached by Devin Stone, a practicing trial lawyer who runs the LegalEagle YouTube channel, and Gonzalo Freixes, UCLA's head mock trial coach. The video follows the preparation, the trial itself, and the jury's deliberation and verdict.
The setup: a "live-action courtroom video game"
Michelle describes the format as a live-action courtroom video game with two players: herself and the prosecutor, Spencer G., who introduces himself as a state prosecutor in the Pacific Northwest who is "here to take Michelle down." Judge Benny Osorio presides. Michelle says everything she knows about law comes from Legally Blonde, Better Call Saul, and A Few Good Men. She asks whether she gets to say "You can't handle the truth."
Devin Stone points out that the best trial lawyers have decades of experience before taking on a case like this, and Michelle has one day. Freixes says he has coached UCLA's mock trial team for more than 25 years and won five national championships. Devin says he learned from Freixes.
The case, State of California v. Ash Thornhill, is based on a case written for the American Mock Trial Association, which students across the United States have competed with. Devin says that having Michelle defend an actual accused murderer would be malpractice, so professional actors play the client and the witnesses. Michelle still finds the experience unsettling. She knows Ash is an actor playing a character, but says the whole thing is "insane."
The case against Ash Thornhill
On the night of October 15, 2024, Wendell Tucker was shot and killed in the administration building of the Cobb County Zoo. Ash Thornhill, the zoo's head zookeeper for mammals, is accused of killing Tucker, his boss, after a dispute between them.
In his first meeting with Michelle, Ash gives his account. He was working late when Tucker called him into his office. They argued about the conditions of the animals. When Ash got up to leave, Tucker grabbed him. Ash pushed him off, and Tucker stumbled back a little but didn't fall. Ash says he then went home and went to bed, and learned the next day that Tucker had been shot some time after he left.
The defense's main asset is an alibi. Ash says he was watching a Dodgers game with his friend and roommate, Drew, had a beer, and went to bed around 9:30. Devin's assessment is that the case has some favorable aspects and some damaging ones.
The first opening statement, and why it didn't work
Devin explains how a trial is structured: opening statements, presentation of evidence through witnesses, closing arguments, then jury deliberation and verdict. An opening statement tells the jury what they will hear and see during the trial. Devin cites psychological studies he says show that two-thirds of jurors make up their minds after the opening statements, before hearing any evidence. That makes the opening extremely important.
Michelle's first draft draws on what she has seen in movies and TV. She describes it as part Elle Woods, part Kim Wexler, and part Tom Cruise. She calls Ash "a devoted zookeeper for over a decade" with a "relentless passion for animal welfare." She warns the jury that the prosecution will tell a story of escalating tension, and she holds up photos of animals in Ash's care (Selena, Judy, and Kiku). She ends by calling him "simply a man of Mother Nature."
The coaches stop her. Anything she mentions in an opening has to come into evidence, so the animal photos only work if Ash lays a foundation for them on the stand. More fundamentally, the draft was "all over the place." Freixes suggests a different method: identify the five strongest pieces of evidence and walk through them in the opening to "plant the seeds."
Finding a theory: thin investigation and a missing Rolex
The defense's first angle is that Sergeant Terry Gerch, the first officer on the scene and the investigating officer, didn't investigate thoroughly or in enough detail. Michelle finds it "insane" that no fingerprints were taken. Devin finds it strange that nobody else was investigated.
Asked if anything specific stood out from his encounter with Tucker, Ash remembers that Tucker always wore a large, flashy gold Rolex. Ash says he saw it right in front of his face when Tucker grabbed him, but the case briefing never mentions it. Michelle immediately suggests robbery: the watch is gone, so this could have been a burglary gone wrong.
Devin uses this to correct a basic misunderstanding. The defense doesn't have to prove who did it, or even that it was someone else. The prosecution bears the burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the defense only needs to create reasonable doubt. When Michelle drafts the line "the evidence against Ash is circumstantial," Devin tells her not to use that word, because circumstantial evidence can still convict someone. He prefers a phrase she used earlier: the evidence is "inconclusive at best." Asked for the single strongest piece of evidence, he names Ash's alibi. He demonstrates how to frame it: the prosecution is "pointing the finger at the wrong person," and the jury will hear about a man who was home watching a Dodgers game with his friend at the exact time of the murder.
Courtroom craft: decorum, delivery, and the jury
The coaches stress that persuasion isn't only about legal substance. Freixes describes the presentation side as delivery, technique, gestures, movement, and vocal inflection, all of which have to come together into an interesting, powerful, persuasive performance. There are also customs. Lawyers stand when addressing the judge, and the judge is always "your honor," never "judge." Freixes says TV often shows gross violations of real courtroom decorum, such as lawyers running around the room. Michelle practices "Your honor, may I approach the bench?" over and over.
Rapport with the jury depends on tone, voice, and body language. One coach introduces what he calls the "paralyzed arm": keep one arm still, for example behind your back, and gesture with the other. He says Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton use it. Michelle says she had assumed they were just holding their jackets to look polished.
At 5 p.m. on the day before trial, Michelle says she has only just learned how a trial works and wishes she had months to prepare. She adds that this is probably why cases usually get months. Devin tells her she has already improved dramatically since that morning. Michelle notes something about the profession that strikes her: you represent the client with full conviction and give them the best possible chance, but you may never know the truth. She asks Ash directly whether he killed Wendell Tucker. The video does not show his answer.
Opening statements in court
When court is in session, Devin introduces himself as co-counsel. He says his role is mostly moral support: he has taught Michelle tactics and strategy, but now he has to let "this little legal baby bird leave the nest."
Spencer explains his strategy as making Ash Thornhill look like an angry, resentful man with every opportunity and motive. He tells the jury that love, greed, and anger are the three most common motives for murder, and that this case is about anger. According to Spencer, Ash saw the welfare of his animals as endangered, and his anger built over months until he finally snapped. Spencer previews the evidence: a veterinarian who heard Ash and Tucker arguing that night, an autopsy by Dr. Monarch, Ash's DNA under Tucker's fingernails, and testimony from Sergeant Gerch that Ash once owned a 9mm pistol, the same caliber as the bullet that killed Tucker. Michelle admits that Spencer is so good she starts to think her own client is guilty, and if she thinks so, the jury surely does.
Freixes says that when he worked on openings with his students, they spent more time on the first sentence than on the rest of the statement, because it has to grab the jury. Michelle suggests a zoo pun, and the coaches warn her against making light of a tragedy. Her final opening begins: "In the wild jungle, it's often the softest animal that gets harmed first." She frames Ash, who spent his life caring for endangered species, as the vulnerable one: the first and most convenient suspect.
She then lays out the gaps: no murder weapon, no physical evidence tying Ash to the crime, no fingerprints, no gunshot residue, and no explanation for the victim's expensive gold Rolex, which she says was reported absent from his body. She argues these gaps exist because the prosecution focused on her client instead of investigating thoroughly. She tells the jury that while the tragedy happened, Ash was home watching the Dodgers lose to the Mets, and that the prosecution ignored other suspects and motives despite clear evidence that robbery, not anger, explains what happened. She closes by saying that, like the quietest animal in the jungle, Ash doesn't deserve to be hunted down for a crime he didn't commit.
During the recess, Michelle says she was shaking under the table before her opening. She was also unnerved that Spencer used no notes and wore a tailored suit. She admits her own suit was held together with a safety pin and came from Amazon the week before.
Learning the rules of evidence
Next comes the witness phase. Spencer calls witnesses to build his case and make Ash look bad. Michelle's job is defense and damage control. When she asks whether all the evidence has already been approved, the coaches say no: she may have to fight to keep some evidence out, and Spencer may fight her evidence too. Devin warns that Spencer may try to slip in evidence he normally wouldn't, to stack the deck, and says he wouldn't trust Spencer to play it straight.
Freixes teaches a cluster of related objections that are likely to come up: lack of foundation, speculation, and improper opinion. The underlying principle is that witnesses, unless they are experts, can only testify to what they saw or heard themselves. His example: if he testified that their assistant Madi was at Starbucks buying coffee, that would lack foundation, because he didn't see it. If he testified that Madi said she was going to Starbucks, that would be hearsay. Michelle sums up her understanding of hearsay as "you can't bring gossip to court."
Sergeant Gerch and the key cards
The state's first witness is Sergeant Terry Gerch, who says he has been with the Cobb County Police Department for 16 years and served in the Marine Corps for eight years after high school. He testifies that a dispatch call came in at 8:55 p.m. on October 15. He met Brook Sills at the zoo's security hub at the main entrance, went to the administration building, and found a man face down on a desk in a pool of blood. He says he touched nothing except to check for a pulse.
When Gerch begins describing what security told him, Michelle objects on hearsay grounds. Spencer replies that the testimony goes to its effect on the listener, explaining the sergeant's next investigative step, and the judge overrules. Devin's comment is that Michelle objected correctly but "didn't quite put the muscle into it."
The zoo's key-card system becomes central. Michelle explains it with a hotel analogy: employees have personalized cards coded to them, while guests and visitors get identical generic cards. At 8:30 p.m., Ash's card was swiped at the garage as he left. Eight minutes later, a generic card was swiped into the admin building, presumably by the killer. Gerch testifies that when police searched Ash's apartment with a warrant, they found a generic key card in a kitchen drawer. Ash says he knows it looks bad but he didn't do it.
Cross-examining the investigator
Devin calls cross-examination his favorite part because it is more aggressive. He tells Michelle to assume the prosecution's witnesses sincerely believe Ash is guilty and may be hostile. With Gerch, the plan is to attack the investigation as shoddy: he jumped to conclusions, ignored alternative suspects, and skipped forensic tests. The defense also wants to blame these failures on Gerch's history with Brook Sills, the zoo's head of security, arguing that their poor relationship clouded his judgment.
In practice, Devin plays Gerch, and Michelle's questions go badly. She asks whether the relationship affected how he felt arriving at the scene. Devin stops her: Gerch will never concede that, so she shouldn't ask it. In character, Devin calls Sills "a substandard Marine." Michelle says she felt trapped halfway through, sensing that he knew where she was going. Devin's advice is to get one concession, that they didn't see eye to eye while serving together, and move on.
In court, Michelle establishes that Gerch knows Sills, that they served together, and that they didn't see eye to eye. Spencer objects on relevance and is overruled. Gerch denies that the relationship affected his work or his judgment and says he ran the investigation as he would any other. Michelle then gets him to confirm that there was no fingerprint analysis and no gunshot residue analysis, at least to his knowledge. When she says he didn't meaningfully pursue the contractors who also had generic key cards, Gerch says everyone who needed to be interviewed was interviewed and their stories corroborated each other.
On redirect, Spencer has Gerch explain that the defendant's fingerprints would naturally be in an admin building where people come and go, so fingerprint analysis was considered unnecessary. Michelle asks permission for two more questions, and the judge allows it. She gets Gerch to agree that without the analysis, no one will ever know whether there were other, unidentified fingerprints at the scene. Afterward, Gerch's actor tells her she was scary and asks, "What happened to being empathetic?"
Wilson, Sills, and Monarch: the argument, the DNA, and the money clip
Dr. Carrol Wilson, a veterinarian, testifies that she was leaving the admin building that night when she heard a loud argument and recognized the voices as Tucker and Ash. On cross, Michelle tries to spread the suspicion around. Wilson agrees that Tucker had strained relationships with many staff members, including Wilson herself. She says she once screamed at him and called him a scumbag, and that "a million people" hated Tucker.
This backfires on redirect. Spencer asks who had the most adversarial relationship with Tucker. Michelle objects on grounds of speculation, then piles on: it's impossible to quantify adversarialness, it might be hearsay, and Wilson isn't a psychologist, so it's lay opinion. The judge overrules and tells her she didn't need all that. Wilson names Ash, and adds that Ash told her he hated Tucker and that what Tucker was doing to the place was unforgivable. Spencer argues that he was only following up on a line of questioning the defense had opened.
Brook Sills, the zoo's security supervisor, testifies that Wilson came to her saying she had heard a sound like a gunshot, and that surveillance footage shows Wilson at the moment she heard it.
Dr. Lawrence Monarch, who performed the autopsy, testifies that the entry wound in the skull indicates a bullet of 9mm or smaller. Ash is a registered owner of a 9mm firearm, but he reported it stolen eight months earlier; Ash says it was taken from his car. Monarch also testifies that DNA from skin cells under Tucker's fingernails was analyzed. Devin calls this probably the worst fact in the case. Ash says it must be from when Tucker grabbed him.
On cross, Michelle gets Monarch to confirm that there were three separate DNA profiles: the victim's, Ash's, and an unidentified third party's. He also confirms that no jewelry was found on the body, including no gold Rolex. When she asks whether he thinks it was a burglary, Monarch says it could have been.
Then Spencer asks his own questions. Monarch confirms that he found a money clip with $320 in cash and a wallet with two credit cards. Michelle admits she made a mistake: she completely missed that detail while preparing, and it hurts the robbery theory, because who would take a gold watch and leave $320 behind? The state then rests.
Putting the defendant on the stand
The defense calls Ash. Devin notes that in real life it is unusual for a criminal defendant to testify. A lot can go wrong, and a good prosecutor can trip the defendant up with damaging questions. He says it makes sense here, though, as a way to build a bond with the jury and strengthen the defense. Michelle's goal for Ash's and Drew's testimony is to paint a picture that the alibi is true and Ash was nowhere near the scene. Freixes says "paint a picture" is exactly right, because direct examination is about letting your witnesses tell their own story.
Direct examination comes with a key restriction: no leading questions, meaning questions that suggest their own answer. Freixes demonstrates. "You're wearing a plum-colored blazer, aren't you?" is leading. "What color is your blazer?" is proper. Both can get the same information, but they shape how the lawyer is perceived and what kind of testimony comes out. Freixes calls this probably the hardest thing for a beginner to get right. In practice, Michelle's first question, "You work at the Cobb County Zoo, correct?", draws an immediate leading objection. Devin also trains her on how to respond to objections. When he raises what he calls a "ticky-tacky" foundation objection, he tells her to put a little attitude into "Your honor, I'll rephrase." Her first attempt has too much; her second is right.
In court, Ash describes his love of animals, a college scholarship in conservation studies, and work at two wildlife sanctuaries before the zoo. He says he regularly works 70-hour weeks without overtime pay, because he doesn't think many people around him have the animals' best interests at heart the way he does. He testifies that when he turned to leave, Tucker grabbed his wrist, and Ash pushed it away. He says Tucker was wearing the big gold Rolex he always flashed around the zoo, and it was clearly in Ash's field of vision. Michelle's follow-up draws another leading objection, which is sustained, and she rephrases. She ends by asking Ash directly whether he killed Tucker, and he says he did not.
Spencer's cross of Ash: "hate" versus "dislike"
Spencer goes after the Rolex first. Ash is the only person who has testified about the watch, and he had read the autopsy report, which lists no jewelry, before taking the stand. Ash confirms both. Spencer then covers the generic key card in Ash's kitchen; Ash says he got it months earlier when his personal card stopped working, and forgot about it. Spencer also covers the stolen Glock 17; Ash confirms he reported it stolen eight months before and didn't buy a replacement, hoping it would be found.
Michelle observes that Spencer becomes a completely different character on cross, with arms crossed and a smug expression she says she didn't appreciate. Spencer points out that Ash didn't mention, during his direct testimony, that he and Tucker raised their voices. Ash says he answered the questions he was asked, then admits they were yelling, that he was furious about how Tucker ran the zoo, and that he was upset some animals (rendered in the transcript as "bongos and okapis") would be kept in their pens permanently. Asked whether he hated Tucker, Ash says he "disliked" him. Spencer asks whether the distinction between strong dislike and hate matters to him. Michelle objects that the question is argumentative and is overruled. Ash says he hadn't thought about the difference until that moment, and that he strongly disliked Tucker. In preparation, Ash had told Michelle that he did hate Tucker, adding that "a million people hate Wendell Tucker," and that he had complained to Drew in a "hate my boss" kind of way.
Drew Mercer: the alibi, a sleeping jury, and the felony fight
Drew is the key witness because he corroborates the alibi. Michelle believes that if the jury finds him trustworthy, the defense can basically win. Drew testifies that he and Ash grew up together, reconnected when Drew moved back to town, and live together. He says Ash got home around 8:40, nothing seemed unusual ("just like a Tuesday"), he tossed Ash a beer, and Ash later went to bed.
During this testimony, Michelle notices jurors falling asleep. Devin says this happens a lot in real trials, and the fix is to do something to grab attention. He teaches a suspense technique to use once or twice per examination: slow down and dramatize the key question. Michelle asks Drew to tell the members of the jury whether, at any time between 8:30 and 9:30, he ever saw Ash leave the property. Drew says no. Devin says this kind of interest-building matters as much as good legal technique. Michelle asks a version of the same question once more, covering 8:45 to 9:30, and Drew answers the same way.
Spencer says the one thing he must do is destroy Drew's credibility, because Drew is the alibi. He opens by asking whether Drew is a felon. Michelle objects, and the lawyers approach the bench. The coaches had anticipated this and given her three grounds to exclude it: the incident was more than ten years ago, Drew was a juvenile, and he was charged but not convicted. Michelle cites Rule 609 and those grounds. Spencer argues it is impeachment by conviction. He says Drew was an accessory to an armed robbery and lied to protect the people who committed it, which "matches up perfectly" because Drew would again be covering for someone else's crime. The judge says the rule requires a finding that the evidence's value substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect, finds that it doesn't, and sustains the objection. The judge tells the jury to disregard the question.
Devin points out the limits of that victory: "you can't unring that bell." The jury heard the question, and the judge can instruct them to ignore it, but they still heard it.
Spencer then gets Drew to change his description of Ash that night. Drew starts by saying Ash had complained that work was hard. Spencer insists he describe how Ash appeared. Drew says Ash looked like he'd had a rough day, and finally answers yes to the question of whether Ash seemed tenser than usual and clammy.
Closing arguments
Michelle explains that you don't write a closing argument entirely in advance. During the trial, she takes notes on what Spencer raises so she can work it into her closing and rebut any last-minute points.
Spencer's closing returns to anger: Ash was angry, and he killed Tucker. He cites Ash's DNA under the fingernails, Ash's fairly recent ownership of a 9mm gun, and the generic key card in Ash's kitchen junk drawer. He says Ash hated Tucker "whether he was willing to say it on the stand or not." He attacks the robbery theory with the cash in the money clip, which he gives as $350, though Monarch's testimony said $320. He argues it would have to be a very specific robbery for one specific item. He tells the jury not to believe Drew, acknowledges that the state must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and asks for a guilty verdict.
Before Michelle's closing, Devin says she needs to focus on the key evidence favoring the defense. If she does that, he thinks she will be in good shape to create reasonable doubt, which is all she needs. Michelle builds her closing on a baseball metaphor: three strikes and you're out. Strike one: Sergeant Gerch's investigation was incomplete, with no fingerprint analysis, no gunshot residue analysis, and an exclusive focus on Ash. Strike two: Dr. Wilson's testimony confirmed that several people disliked Tucker. Strike three: Drew Mercer testified that at the time of the murder, Ash was home winding down after a long day, watching the Mets beat the Dodgers. She reminds the jury that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, says there is plenty to doubt, and asks them to let "this innocent man walk home."
Deliberation and verdict
The jurors' deliberation shows that both sides' arguments landed. Several jurors call the investigation sloppy and say they struggle with the lack of evidence. One says the state locked onto the defendant from the start because he disliked Tucker, adding, "I dislike a lot of people. I'm not going to kill them." Others push back. One points to the money left in Tucker's wallet as a problem for the robbery theory. Another isn't sure Drew is telling the truth, noting that he first described a normal evening and then, under questioning, conceded that Ash was upset, had a bad day, and seemed clammy. One juror asks how likely it is that someone robbed Tucker on the same day he argued with Ash. Another reminds the group that their job is not to find the culprit, and that they can only assume so much about motives.
The foreperson, Juror No. 1, announces the verdict: not guilty of murder. Ash's actor says he really thought he was going to jail.
Spencer says the verdict didn't surprise him. He says Michelle did a very effective job and showed a level of adaptability that he found surprising for someone with 24 hours of legal experience. Freixes says he is especially proud that Michelle seems to understand hearsay, which he says gives even law students and lawyers trouble. Michelle asks whether this makes her a partner, and gets the answer, "We'll discuss that later."
Hi. Hi, I'm Michelle, and I'll be representing you tomorrow in court.
This week on Challenge Accepted, I'm going to see what it's like to be a defense lawyer in a simulated murder trial.
We're going to, in one day, teach her what a criminal trial lawyer needs to do in a murder case.
My first question is, how does the law work?
What we've set up is basically a live-action courtroom video game. We have 12 jurors. We have a real Superior Court judge. We have actors playing all of the witnesses, and our two players are me and my opposition, a seasoned state prosecutor with decades of experience.
He was angry, and he killed Mr. Tucker.
I'm a state prosecutor in the Pacific Northwest, and I'm here to take Michelle down.
So this is what I say: objection.
It is impossible to quantify the level of adversarialness.
You don't need that. Your Honor, I'm happy to rephrase.
Wait, that's too much. Okay, what happened to being apathetic? You're looking at me like I'm the lawyer. Take me out of this court.
In the criminal justice system, the people are usually represented by real, actual lawyers. Today, it's a YouTuber pretending to be one. This is her story.
Thank you guys so much for being here today. I am so excited to learn everything about the law. The only thing that I know about the law is what I have seen in Legally Blonde, Better Call Saul, and A Few Good Men.
You want answers? I think I'm entitled. You want answers? I want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
Wait, do I get to say that?
The best trial lawyers have literally decades of experience before they're heading straight into trial.
Well, we have one day. We have one day to prepare for a murder trial.
My name is Devin Stone. I am a practicing trial lawyer. On YouTube, I run the channel LegalEagle, which is one of the biggest law-related YouTube channels on the internet.
This is the man that I learned everything from, UCLA's head mock trial coach, Gonzalo Freixes.
One of my passions is I have been coaching the mock trial team at UCLA for over 25 years. Proud to have five national championships under our belt, and we're here to give you a crash course in becoming a trial lawyer.
The case you're going to see is the case of the State versus Ash Thornhill. This is a criminal case based on a real case that students all across the United States competed in 2001 through the American Mock Trial Association. And tomorrow, we'll be going against a real district attorney, Spencer.
Yes, I know he wants to win really badly, but I want to win really badly too.
And so do we. We're not in the business of losing trials. Why don't we take a look at the evidence and see what we're dealing with so that we can help you defend your client?
On the night of October 15th, 2024, Wendell Tucker was murdered in the admin building of the Cobb County Zoo. Our client, Ash Thornhill, he's accused of shooting his boss, Wendell Tucker, because of a dispute that they had. Michelle, your job is going to be to defend our client, Ash Thornhill.
So for this trial, I am going to play the role of a defense attorney for Ash Thornhill, who is on trial for the murder of his boss.
I'm Michelle, and I'll be representing you tomorrow in court.
I'm Ash.
Now, for the purpose of this exercise, we couldn't actually have Michelle defend an accused murderer. That would be malpractice, so we're using some professional actors.
I know that he's an actor playing a character, but this whole thing is just insane.
Who are you talking to?
I need to get as much information as I can so I can make the best case possible. Okay, maybe you can just start by telling me what happened.
Yeah, well, I'm the head zookeeper for mammals at the Cobb County Zoo. On the night that Wendell Tucker was killed, I was there working late. My boss, Wendell, called me into his office. We got in an argument about the conditions of the animals. I decide to leave. I get up to leave, and he grabbed me. I pushed him off. He stumbles back a little, but he doesn't fall down or anything. That was it. I went home, went to bed, and then I found out the next day he'd been shot some time after I left.
But on top of all of that, our client actually has a really good alibi. He claims that he was watching a baseball game with his friend/roommate, Drew, during the time of the murder.
And you said you guys were watching a baseball game?
Yeah, it was a Dodgers game. I sat there with him, had a beer, probably. I think I went to bed around 9:30.
Wait, is this looking good for us?
Well, there's some very favorable aspects. There's some damaging aspects, but I think there's some favorable aspects. And that leads us to talking about how you're going to present this in your opening statement.
Yeah, so, monologue.
If you've ever watched a trial on TV, here is how it's actually structured: opening statements, presentation of evidence through witnesses, closing arguments. Then the jury will deliberate and present a verdict. So I've got to start with the opening statement.
The point of an opening statement is to tell the jury what they're going to hear and see during trial. Now, interestingly, psychological studies have shown that two-thirds of all jurors make up their minds about the case after hearing the opening statements, before they've heard a shred of evidence.
So the opening is super important. Okay, so I wrote an opening statement based on the movies and TV shows that I've seen, because that's all I know about the law at this point. For this opening statement, I'm channeling part Elle Woods, part Kim Wexler, and part Tom Cruise.
I'm a really big fan of Tom Cruise, and I would love to get a selfie with him one day. And so I have a secret mission. Over the past couple years, y'all know we have been doing bigger and bigger videos and stunts, and this year I have a goal of accomplishing Tom Cruise's deadliest stunts. If you want to support us in that mission impossible, be sure to subscribe. Tom, if you're watching, hit me up.
Go for it.
All right. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, today you are here to consider the fate of Ash Thornhill. This is a man who has been a devoted zookeeper for over a decade, known for his relentless passion for animal welfare. The prosecution is going to come in and paint a story of escalating tensions between Ash and Wendell, a disrespect to this man's legacy and the animals in his care. And the animals in his care, like Selena, Judy, and Kiku. At the end of this trial, after hearing the full evidence, you will find that there is only one verdict here: not guilty, and simply a man of Mother Nature. Thank you.
I'm trying to win the jury with the cute animal photos.
Oh yeah, we'll talk about that. That's not allowed. If it's going to come into evidence—
This is the evidence. This has to go into evidence for me to—
Yeah, everything that you talk about has to come. You have to have Ash—
Come on. Yeah, you can't look at this and say this man's a murderer, right? Okay, no animal photos. Got it.
So it was a little all over the place. We need to sit down and say, okay, what are the five things that we have that's our strongest evidence? And then let's walk through those five things in the opening so that you can plant the seeds.
What I'm thinking will potentially be our best avenue in is to really press on the fact that Gerch did not do a lengthy or detailed enough investigation.
Sergeant Gerch is the investigating officer and the first police officer to arrive on the scene the night of the murder.
It's insane to me that fingerprints weren't taken at this.
That's what I'm saying. And I think your point about nobody else was investigated is very strange to me. Is there any reason why someone other than our client might have had a motive to commit this murder? Do you remember anything specific about your interaction with Mr. Tucker?
You know what I did notice is he has this watch that he would always wear, big flashy gold Rolex. It was right there in my face when he grabbed me, and I saw no mention of it in the case briefing.
Oh, a robbery, because the watch is gone.
So it's possible that this was just a routine burglary gone wrong.
So we just have to prove, as the defense, that they don't have enough evidence to prove that it was our guy. We don't have to prove that it was someone else. We just have to say, hey, you don't have enough evidence to prove that it's—
We don't even have to prove that.
Yeah, so what are we doing?
Well, it's the prosecution that bears the burden of proof. They have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
We don't have to prove who did it. We just have to prove that there's reasonable doubt that you did it, that you didn't do it. We have to create doubt. We have to make everyone reasonably doubt. I doubt that he did it. I doubt that.
The evidence against Ash is circumstantial, incomplete. With inconclusive evidence, I assure you that the burden of the proof of guilt is not met.
Don't use the word circumstantial, because that would be okay. Circumstantial evidence can convict somebody. At some point you used another word, which I liked much better: the evidence is inconclusive at best. What's the single strongest piece of evidence that we have?
Ash's alibi.
Absolutely. That is absolutely. I'm just going to try something. There's a problem with what we just heard. They're pointing the finger at the wrong person, and that's what this case is about. You see, ladies and gentlemen, today you're going to hear about this nice guy who was home having a beer and watching a Dodger game with his friend at the exact time of the murder.
There's a presentational aspect about this in terms of doing certain kinds of delivery and techniques and gestures and movement and voice inflection. And all of this has to be put together to have an interesting, powerful, and persuasive presentation. And then there's certain customs. For example, whenever you address the judge, you have to stand up out of respect.
On TV, we often see gross violations of real-life decorum, where people are just kind of running around the courtroom. And in fact, there's a court rule that when you refer to the judge, you always refer to them as Your Honor, not judge. Even that is a violation of the decorum and etiquette.
Beyond learning the scope of the law, there are so many details that the lawyer needs to be fantastic at.
Your Honor, may I? Your Honor. Your Honor. Yes, Your Honor. Yes, Your Honor. May I approach the bench?
There is the qualitative component about rapport with the jury, tone, voice, body language.
Do you ever put your hands behind your back?
No, you should try to paralyze an arm.
What's that?
You paralyze one of your arms, and you speak with the other one. Harris does this.
Yeah, Hillary Clinton does it too.
I thought they were just grabbing their jacket and looking nice doing it. You only get a first impression one time, and this is my first impression with the jury.
So it's currently 5:00 p.m. The trial is tomorrow. I've just learned how a trial works. I wish I had months to prepare. I guess that's why there are usually months.
Why Challenge Accepted, you know?
Yeah. Where you are now compared to where you started in the beginning of the day is night and day already.
And now I got to stay up as late as I can to really make sure I show up professionally tomorrow, and not only say the right things, but sound confident doing it too. And that's a really unique thing about this profession. Your job is to represent the client with so much conviction and give them the best chance, but you might not actually know the truth.
Ash, did you kill Wendell Tucker?
All rise. In the presence of the flag of the United States, emblem of the Constitution and of freedom and justice for all, department number 137 of the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Cobb is now in session, the Honorable Benny Osorio, judge presiding. Please be seated.
All right, good morning, everyone.
Good morning.
Welcome to Department 137. We are here in the matter of the State of California versus Ash Thornhill. I will ask the attorneys and their client to stand and introduce themselves to you.
Spencer G. for the state.
My name is Spencer. I'm a state prosecutor in the Pacific Northwest, and I'm here to take Michelle down. I'm going to be relying on my skills as a trial attorney. I'm going to be trying to use all the powers and tricks that I know to try and get the jury to go my way. I like to win.
Good morning, Your Honor. Devin Stone, and I, along with my co-counsel Michelle Khare, represent Ash Thornhill, the defendant in this matter.
My role during this trial is largely moral support. I am there as a resource to teach Michelle some of the tactics and strategies, but after that, I've got to let this little legal baby bird leave the nest.
All right, members of the jury, you have now been sworn as jurors in this case. I want to impress upon you the seriousness and the importance of serving on a jury. So we will now begin with opening statements. Counsel for the state, are you ready to proceed?
Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.
So my plan for attack for this trial is I am going to be focusing as much as possible on making Ash Thornhill an angry, resentful man who had every opportunity and motive to commit this murder.
Love, greed, anger. Those are the three most common motives for murder. This case is about anger. It's about the defendant's anger towards his boss, Wendell Tucker. He saw the welfare of the animals that he was taking care of as endangered, and this set him on a course that lasted, frankly, months, his anger rising and rising and rising until it finally snapped.
As I'm hearing Spencer's opening statement, I'm realizing, oh my God, this is about to go down.
You're going to hear there was another veterinarian working at the zoo that night. She heard arguing, arguing between the defendant and Mr. Tucker. You're going to hear from Dr. Monarch about the results of his autopsy. You're going to hear that the defendant's DNA was found under Mr. Tucker's fingernails. You're also going to hear from Sergeant Gerch that the defendant himself had previously owned a 9 mm pistol, and that it was a 9 mm bullet that killed Mr. Tucker.
He is so good that even I am beginning to think that my own client is guilty. And if I'm thinking that, the jury is definitely thinking that.
At the end of this case, I am going to urge you that the only reasonable conclusion in this case is that the defendant is guilty. Thank you.
Thank you, counsel. All right, counsel for Mr. Thornhill, are you ready to present your opening statement?
Your Honor, yes, I am.
When I would work with my students on the opening statement, we spent more time crafting the first sentence than we did the entire rest of the opening statement. That's how important it is. It's got to be a grabber.
Is there a zoo pun?
Don't—
I mean, like kangaroo—
Yeah, I know, but you don't want to make fun of it. You don't want to make light of it, because it's tragic. I like the idea you said. What about something about Mother Nature?
No. Okay. Okay.
In the wild jungle, it's often the softest animal that gets harmed first. In this case, a dedicated zookeeper who has spent his life caring for endangered species finds himself in the role of the vulnerable as the first and most convenient suspect.
You will hear no evidence of a murder weapon. You will hear no physical proof tying Mr. Thornhill to this crime. No fingerprints, no gunpowder residue. And you will hear no explanation of what happened to the victim's expensive gold Rolex, which, at the scene of the crime, was reported absent from his body. These are critical gaps because the prosecution has focused on my client rather than conducting a thorough investigation.
The truth is, on October 15th, while a real tragedy unfolded at the Cobb County Zoo, my client was home watching the Dodgers lose to the Mets. The prosecution has failed to explore all potential suspects or motives, despite clear evidence that robbery, not anger, led to this outcome. And like the quietest animal in the jungle, he does not deserve to be hunted down for a crime he did not commit. Thank you.
All right, thank you, Miss Khare. All right, at this time we will be taking our recess. When we are ready to call you back into the courtroom, we will let you know.
Oh my God, wait, that was crazy. So intense.
How do you feel about it so far?
I think Spencer's scared of us.
I think he is too. I was shaking underneath the table before I had to go for my opening statement. I was like, oh my God, Spencer doesn't have any notes, and his suit is actually tailored.
Do you want to know a secret about my suit? I had to safety pin it because the sleeves were—
I got this on Amazon last week. Yeah, me too. Oh my God, what is this, Gucci? It's custom-made.
Now the next part of the trial is what I'm most excited about: witness examination. And we're talking about a big variety of witnesses, from police officers to forensic pathologists to eyewitnesses. But before that, we have just a few words from our sponsors.
Are you a victim of bad business software, clunky accounting tools, or a website that looks like it was made in 1998? Well, you may be entitled to the sponsor of today's episode, Odoo. Odoo is the all-in-one business management software that streamlines your workflow. No more juggling dozens of different apps. With Odoo, you can handle accounting, inventory, sales, and build a website all in one place. In just a few clicks, you can use Odoo's website builder to create a sleek, professional site. It's fast, simple, and free. Plus, it comes with a custom domain for the entire year. Still not convinced? I'll let my satisfied clients do the talking.
Thanks to Odoo, my business is thriving, and I'm no longer being crushed by the insufferable weight of inefficient business management tools.
And as a special offer, I'm throwing in some exclusive deleted scenes from Challenge Accepted. You can find them on our super secret Odoo-built website below. So don't wait. Click the link in the description and try Odoo for free for 14 days. No credit card, no hidden fees, only justice. Thanks, Odoo, for sponsoring this portion of the video and for making episodes like this one possible.
All right, the court is back in session. At this time, we will now proceed with the first witness. Yes, the state calls Sergeant Terry Gerch.
This phase of the trial is all about getting evidence in through the witnesses. Spencer's job is to call witnesses to the stand that help build his case and effectively make Ash look bad. My job is to play defense and do a little bit of damage control.
So all of the evidence we're bringing in has been approved? Not necessarily. Oh. You're going to have to fight to keep some of that out, and Spencer may fight you on keeping some of your evidence out. So one of the things we're going to be doing is teaching you the basics of the rules of evidence so that you can object and know how to respond to an objection. Is this when I say objection? Yes, you got to say objection. Spencer may try to get in some pieces of evidence that he wouldn't normally try to get in during trial to try to stack the deck in his favor. I would not trust him to play it straight in this trial.
Do you solemnly swear that all the testimony you're about to give before this court is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? I do. You may be seated, sir. What is your name? Sergeant Terry Gerch. Sir, how are you employed? With the Cobb County Police Department, 16 years. And were you employed before you were a police officer? I was a Marine for eight years out of high school.
Okay, how'd you get involved in this case, Sergeant? A call came over on dispatch at 8:55 on October 15th of this year to go to the Cobb County Zoo. Where at the zoo did you actually arrive? To the main entrance. There's a security hub there where I was met by Miss Brook Sills. We went to the admin building to investigate. When you got to that office, what did you see? I saw a man face down on a desk in a pool of blood. I didn't touch anything except to check his pulse, and he was indeed deceased.
There will be occasions where you and Spencer might have to have an objection battle. How do I object? There's this collection of objections that are actually very likely to come up, and they're all sort of related to each other. One is proper foundation or lack of foundation. The other is speculation, and the other's improper opinion. Okay. Witnesses can only testify to things they saw with their own eyes or heard with their own ears. Yeah. Unless you have an expert. Yeah.
For example, if I was to testify, Madi is now at Starbucks buying coffee for us. Did I object? Lack of foundation. Okay, because am I there? Do I see Madi doing that? I haven't seen that with my own eyes, so I can't talk about that. Madi said she was going to Starbucks. That's hearsay.
So basically, my understanding of hearsay is you can't bring gossip to court. Boring. What that means is you can't be on the stand and be like, I heard somebody said this. That's a moment where you can say, objection, hearsay.
Now, having investigated yourself, are you familiar with the Cobb County Zoo's security system? Sills informed me what had happened. Objection, hearsay. Effect on the listener, Your Honor. Goes to his next investigative step. Overruled.
She absolutely objected correctly, but didn't quite put the muscle into it. Judge went my way.
How do you understand that security system to work? A card correlates to an employee. An employee has access to a particular area of the building based on a specific key card.
So an important aspect of this case is the zoo's security system, controlled by key cards. Think of it like hotel keys, right? I have a personalized key card, but for guests or visitors, they have generic key cards. These ones are all the same. They don't have a specialized code. This one has a specialized code that is tied to me. Here's where things get confusing. At 8:30 p.m., Ash swiped his card into the garage to leave, but eight minutes later, a generic key card was swiped into the admin building, assumedly Mr. Tucker's murderer.
Did you obtain a search warrant for the defendant's apartment? Yes, sir. What did you find during the search? In one of his kitchen drawers, I found a generic key card. So he had his employee ID when he was arrested, his employee card, but you found this generic card in a drawer in his kitchen? Exactly, yes. No further questions, Your Honor.
You have a generic key card in your drawer? Yeah. They're going to say that this is the same generic key card used by the murderer. I know it looks bad, but I didn't do it, so that should win out, right?
Defense, are you ready for cross-examination? Yes, Your Honor.
Ooh, all right, let's talk about cross-examination. Devin's getting all excited. Cross-examination is my favorite. Yes. Is it? Yeah, because cross is more aggressive, and that's sort of more natural. These prosecution witnesses might be hostile. Now, when you say that these four witnesses are hostile, what are we talking here? Are they going to be mean to me? They might. We should probably assume that these witnesses believe in their heart of hearts that our client's committed this murder.
When should you be aggressive in your tone with witnesses, and when should you not? With somebody like Officer Gerch, you're going after them. You're attacking that they did a shoddy investigation. They jumped to conclusions without looking at alternative suspects, and they did not conduct all of the forensic tests.
Our plan with Sergeant Gerch is to discredit him in front of the jury, really press in on why he didn't do a thorough investigation. And we're going to try and blame all of that on Gerch's prior history with Brook Sills, the head of security at the Cobb County Zoo. We're going to highlight the fact that this prior negative relationship clouded his judgment and his ability to do a thorough investigation.
Officer Gerch, when you arrived on scene on October 15th, you knew Brook Sills, the director of security, correct? Yes. And on the night you showed up, this prior relationship impacted how you felt arriving to the scene and seeing that Brook Sills was a part of this conflict that you had to investigate? No, I disagree with that. See, that's the question you can't ask, because he's never going to concede that.
In fact, Detective, the two of you really didn't see eye to eye on things back when you were Marines. I would never see eye to eye with a substandard Marine like that. Nevertheless, this information that you put in your report from this witness who you knew previously during your Marine service, that you did not see eye to eye with, yes or no? That's correct.
Try. I know. No, no, no, no. It's hard. This is hard. I felt trapped in those questions halfway through. I was like, damn it, you knew where I was going. But okay, if all you get out from him is, nevertheless, when you were serving in the military, you did not see eye to eye with Brook Sills, yes or no? And then move on.
Officer Gerch, you know Brook Sills, another witness in this case? That's correct. You have a history together? We served in the military together. And during the eight years that you served alongside Miss Sills, did you have any disagreements? Objection, Your Honor, irrelevance. Overruled.
So, Officer Gerch, we were just talking about your relationship with Miss Sills. Were there times when you didn't see eye to eye? Yeah, we didn't particularly see eye to eye on things. And these feelings, they clearly impacted your work that evening. Did they impact your work that evening? I don't understand the question. When you met Miss Brook Sills, with whom you did not see eye to eye, this impacted your ability to do a thorough investigation? No. You're claiming it did not emotionally impact your judgment? Absolutely not. You're claiming that you would have run this investigation like you would any other location? Of course. It's a profession, so yes.
So no fingerprint analysis, no gunpowder analysis? Not to my knowledge, no. You also said you didn't meaningfully pursue any other suspects. Everyone was interviewed. All the potential witnesses that we wanted to interview were interviewed. And you never meaningfully pursued any of the contractors who also had generic key cards? Their stories all corroborated each other's story. No further questions. Thank you, counsel.
Nice job. Then the judge is going to ask, redirect, counselor? And he may feel he wants to ask some additional questions to clear up something that came up during your cross-examination. That is redirect.
Any redirect? Yes, Your Honor. Sergeant Gerch, now in this case, where you have an office in an admin building where people come and go, would you expect to find the defendant's fingerprints in that admin building? Naturally, yes. We felt there was no need to do fingerprint analysis at that time. Thank you. No further questions.
Your Honor, I would just like to ask a few more questions. Two questions. All right, I'll allow it. Thank you, Your Honor. Officer Gerch, you said that you didn't do a fingerprint analysis because you didn't deem it necessary. However, we don't know if there are other unidentified fingerprints at the scene, correct? Yes or no, we will never know if there are other fingerprints at the scene. That's correct. No further questions. All right, thank you. All right, thank you, Sergeant.
You look scared. Because you're being scary. What happened to being empathetic?
That's all right. Mr. G, you ready to call your next witness? Yes, Your Honor. The state calls Dr. Carrol Wilson. Now, that night, did anything catch your attention as you were leaving the admin building? I overheard an argument. I recognized the voices. It was Wendell Tucker and Ash Thornhill. How loud was the argument? It was loud.
I screamed at him. I told him he was a scumbag, but a million people hated Wendell Tucker.
Mr. Wendell had several strained relationships, correct? Yeah. Would you agree that he had strained relationships with the staff, including yourself? Yes. Doctor, you said that some staff members had more adversarial relationships with Mr. Tucker than others. Yes. Who was the most adversarial with him? Objection, speculation. Your Honor, I'm just following up on a question and response that counsel made during examination. And how do you respond to that? I respond that it is impossible to quantify the level of adversarialness of an individual person, and furthermore, potentially hearsay on this individual's interpretation of that. Furthermore, she is not a professional psychologist or psychiatrist to make that assessment. It's lay opinion testimony, right? You don't need that, so overruled. Okay. You can answer the question, Doctor. Who was the most adversarial with him? Ash Thornhill.
Did the defendant say something to you about his feelings towards Mr. Tucker? Yes. He said he hated him, and he said that what he was doing to the place was unforgivable. Thank you, Your Honor. No further questions.
The state calls Brook Sills. Ma'am, how are you employed? I am the security supervisor at Cobb County Zoo. How did you first get involved in this case? Dr. Carrol Wilson had come to me. She said that she had heard a loud sound that sounded like a gunshot. We have surveillance footage of Carrol Wilson when she heard the gun sound.
Sir, can you please state your full name for the record? Yes, Dr. Lawrence Monarch. Did you conduct an autopsy of Mr. Tucker? Yes. What findings did you make? The bone entrance defect through the front of the skull suggests the size of the bullet would have to have been nine millimeters or smaller.
What, if any, connection is there between this bullet and Ash Thornhill? Ash is a registered gun owner of a firearm that does shoot nine-millimeter bullets. However, the firearm was reported stolen eight months ago.
You are a registered gun owner? I am, yeah. Of a nine-millimeter handgun, which is the same size bullet of the firearm that killed Wendell Tucker. It was stolen from my car.
Did you conduct any DNA analysis? We ran DNA on the skin cells that were found under the fingernail of the deceased.
Probably the single worst fact is that the DNA of our client is found under the fingernails of the murder victim. It must be from when he grabbed me. Okay.
Dr. Monarch, you mentioned earlier that there was DNA found underneath the fingernails, correct? In fact, there were three separate DNA sequences found. One was the victim's, one was Mr. Thornhill's, and one was from a third party, correct? An unidentified third party, yes. So you have no idea who that person is? No, we don't. When you were there, did you find any jewelry on the victim? No. So you specifically did not find a gold Rolex watch? Correct.
So do you think this was a burglary? I think it could have been. All I know is he was wearing his watch. I saw it. It was right there in my face when he grabbed me.
Dr. Monarch, you didn't find any watch or other jewelry. You did find a money clip with $320 in cash, is that right? Correct. You also found a wallet with two credit cards? Correct.
I made a mistake. I made a mistake. I totally missed that detail during my prep. This really hurts our case that it was a robbery, because who would take a gold watch but leave $320 behind?
State rests, Your Honor. Okay, with the state having rested at this point in time, we will now begin with the defense presentation of their evidence. And Miss Khare, are you ready to proceed? Yes, Your Honor, we are. Call your first witness. The defense would like to call Ash Thornhill to the stand. Thank you very much. Mr. Thornhill, please take the stand.
In real life, it's unusual for the criminal defendant to actually take the stand. There's so much that can go wrong, and a good prosecutor can do a really good job of tripping that person up and asking some really debilitating questions. It's a risk, and Michelle is going to have to navigate those risks, but it makes sense for her to build that bond and to strengthen the defense.
I think with the direct examination of Drew and Ash, I want to paint the picture that Ash's alibi is correct, true, and he was nowhere near the scene when the murder happened. The thing that you said that I really liked the most was that you wanted to paint a picture. Direct examination is all about letting your witnesses tell their story.
Mr. Thornhill, would you state your name for the record? Ash Thornhill. Mr. Thornhill, where do you currently work? At the Cobb County Zoo. I am the head zookeeper for mammals. What inspired you to pursue this job? I was always an animal lover, I guess. I got a scholarship to college for conservation studies. Post-college, I worked at two different wildlife sanctuaries until I found myself in the employ of the Cobb County Zoo. It's always been a passion of mine.
And given your passion, what are your hours like at this position? Extensive. I regularly work 70-hour workweeks. It's not a paid overtime position, but I feel that I don't know that many other people around me in the workplace have the animals' best interests the way that I do. So if I don't look after them, who will?
When you are asking the direct examination questions, you are not allowed to lead, and a leading question is one that implies the answer in it. This is probably one of the
Hardest things for somebody that's never done this before to do correctly. So I'm going to stand up and ask you a couple questions, okay, just to show you the difference. So if I say, "You're wearing a plum-colored blazer, aren't you?" "Yes." That's a leading question. If this was a trial, Devin would in fact be, "Objection, objection, objection. Leading, leading," because I suggested the answer. So the proper way to ask that: "What color is your blazer?" Now those could elicit the exact same information, but how you are perceived and potentially the type of information that's coming out could be completely different.
Okay, here we go. All right, Mr. Thornhill, you work at the Cobb County Zoo, correct? I do. Objection, leading. Okay, right there. Okay, Mr. Thornhill, where do you work? At the Cobb County Zoo. I'm the head zookeeper of mammals. Tell me about some of the keystone projects you worked on as a part of this position. Objection, lacks foundation. So can I just rephrase that? Yeah, so you can say, "Your Honor, I'll rephrase." Your Honor, I'll rephrase. Okay, sustained.
Also, put a little spite into that. That's a really ticky-tacky objection that I made, so, "Your Honor, I'll rephrase the question." You're saying have attitude? This freaking guy. Okay, okay. Your Honor, I'm happy to rephrase. Sorry, let me add more to that. Your Honor, I'm happy to rephrase. Wait, that's too much. Okay. Your Honor, I'm happy to rephrase. Good, good, good.
Mr. Thornhill, how has this construction expansion impacted your working hours? Objection, relevance. Your Honor, I intend to discuss with Mr. Thornhill how this particular project impacted his working hours, specifically on the night of October 15th. Okay, all right. Overruled. Good job. Good, but I won't do that tomorrow. Celebrate.
Now let's go back to when you met Mr. Tucker. What happened at the end of your shift when you met with him? I turned to leave him there, and he grabbed me by the wrist. I shoved his wrist away, left him standing there, and exited the office. When he grabbed your wrist, did you notice any jewelry on his wrist? Yes, I did. He was wearing a big gold Rolex he always wears. He loves to flash it around the zoo. I've rarely seen him without it. It was clearly in my field of vision when he grabbed my wrist.
And this is a memorable piece of this character? Yeah, you wouldn't forget. Objection, leading. To re-ask it, it was a piece of jewelry that you wouldn't forget, that he often would almost intentionally flash in people's faces.
Mr. Thornhill, would you please tell the members of our jury, did you kill Mr. Tucker? I did not kill Mr. Tucker. I had nothing to do with that. No further questions. Thank you. Mr. G, cross-examination. Thank you, Your Honor. Great job.
So, Mr. Thornhill, your testimony here that he had a Rolex watch on, and yet you're the only person who's testified about a Rolex watch. You're aware of that? I am aware of that, yeah. And you're also aware, because you previously reviewed it prior to trial, that in the autopsy report there was no Rolex watch. There was no jewelry at all. Isn't that right? I am aware of that. You had previously seen that autopsy report prior to coming in here today and testifying about a Rolex watch, isn't that right? Yes, that's accurate.
There was also a generic key card in your kitchen, isn't that right? Yes, that's true. Yeah, where'd that come from? It's from months ago. My personal key card failed to work. I had to get a replacement. Quite simply, I forgot about it.
You also did previously own a pistol, a 9mm pistol, right? Glock 17, yes. All right, eight months prior to the incident we're discussing here in this trial, you reported it stolen to the police department? Yes. And you didn't buy a replacement? No, I did not. Just let it be, filed your report, and went on with your life? Well, I was hoping it would be found. Okay.
Spencer flips into a completely different character during cross-examination. His body language, he has his arm crossed. He's got this smug look on his face, which I don't appreciate, by the way.
So that night, October 15th, you went into Mr. Tucker's office. Now, interestingly, when you were answering questions from your attorney, what you didn't mention is that you raised your voices. Isn't that true? I didn't mention volume at all, I don't think. Well, I mean, it's kind of important, don't you think, that it wasn't just a casual conversation, but you in fact were yelling at each other? Well, I answered the questions that were asked to me. Were you in fact yelling at each other? Yes.
You were infuriated at how he ran the zoo? Yes. You were upset that bongos and okapis were going to be kept in their pen permanently, right? Absolutely. And you weren't going to stand for it? There wasn't much I could do. I certainly let him know what I thought about it.
You hated Mr. Tucker? I disliked him. So right now your testimony is you didn't hate him? I don't think he had the interests of the animals of the zoo at all in his mind. So you're drawing a real careful distinction here between strongly dislike and hate. Is that an important distinction to you, or did you just hate him? Objection, argumentative. Overruled. I haven't considered the difference between hate and dislike in relation to Mr. Tucker until this moment.
Ash, did you hate Wendell Tucker? Yes, I hated Wendell Tucker, but a million people hate Wendell Tucker. Did you hate Mr. Tucker? I strongly disliked him. Okay, no further questions.
Miss Khare, your next witness. Yes, Your Honor, the defense would like to call Drew Mercer to the stand. Does Drew know you hate Wendell? I've complained about Wendell to Drew a couple times in a pretty "I hate my boss" type way. I think he was wondering why I was in such a bad mood the night of the incident. The night of the incident? Yes.
Drew is our key witness because he corroborates Ash's alibi that he was home watching a baseball game when this murder happened. If the jury believes him to be a trustworthy person, we can basically win the case.
Mr. Mercer, how do you know Mr. Thornhill? Ash and I, we grew up together, and then we reconnected when I moved back into town. Okay, yeah. And on the night of October 15th, did you encounter him at any point? Yeah, he got home like 8:40. So do you currently live together? Yeah. And when he got home at 8:40, was anything unusual with his demeanor? No, I mean, nothing seemed like a—just like a Tuesday. So nothing seemed out of the ordinary? I tossed him a beer. He sat down. He got up, went to bed. I had another beer, cleaned up.
I cannot believe that during my star witness examination that the jury is falling asleep. What do you do when you're doing a trial and the jury is falling asleep? Which actually happens a lot. You have to sort of do something to grab their attention. There is a technique for creating suspense to really drive something home that maybe you say once, maybe twice during the examination. What is that?
Mr. Mercer, could you tell the members of the jury if at any time between 8:30 and 9:30 you ever saw Ash Thornhill leave the property? No, I never did. That was so dramatic. Oh my gosh, so exciting. Your ears perk up. That's the kind of stuff you have to do to create interest, build suspense. That is just as important as good legal technique.
Mr. Mercer, please tell the members of the jury, between 8:45 and 9:30 p.m., did you ever see Mr. Thornhill leave the living room or the property in any capacity? No. He came home and hung out with me, just watching the game till it ended. Then he got up and went to bed. Thank you. No further questions. All right, thank you. Cross-examination.
The last thing that I really need to do is I need to attack Drew Mercer. He is the single most important witness for the defense. He is the alibi witness. I have to do whatever I can to destroy his credibility so that the jury does not believe a word that he says.
And Mr. Mercer, you are a felon, is that right? Objection, relevance. All right, please approach. The prosecution at some point is going to try to show that this guy was not to be believed because he's a felon. You have three grounds for keeping it out. One, over ten years ago. You got it. Two, he was a juvenile. And three, he was charged but not convicted.
Your Honor, the prosecution is using improper character to falsify Mr. Mercer's claim, which is unfair to him given his past that has nothing to do with his case. All right, and why are you offering it? It's impeachment by conviction, Your Honor. Okay, you have a response to that? For Rule 609, Your Honor, it has been over ten years, and he was a juvenile, and he was not convicted.
Your Honor, he was an accessory to an armed robbery, and he falsified to protect the people who were actually conducting the armed robbery. In other words, it matches up perfectly. How does it match up perfectly? He is again covering up for someone else's crime in that initial case when he was 17. Okay, but are you going to get into the facts of the prior conviction, or are you just bringing up the prior conviction to impeach him on credibility? I can't get into the specific facts under it. However, the court can take those into consideration.
The statute does require that I find that the evidence substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. I don't find it. It's over ten years. I believe at this time that it doesn't align perfectly. So at this time the court will sustain the objection. Thank you, Your Honor. And members of the jury, remember, the questions are not evidence. So the question regarding any felony shall not be considered by you. You are to disregard that question.
If evidence comes out that shouldn't, you can't unring that bell. The jury has heard it, and the judge would give a limiting instruction to the jury to tell them to ignore it, to pretend they never saw it. But they did.
Mr. Mercer, I want to direct your attention to the night of October 15th of this year. When you saw him that night, he was tense and clammy, wasn't that right? I mean, he had been saying that work has been hard because of the— Sir, just to be very clear, I was asking about how he appeared to you. He appeared to you tenser than usual and clammy, is that right? He appeared like he had a rough day. Mr. Mercer, it's a yes-or-no question. He appeared tenser than usual and clammy, is that right? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mercer.
All right, at this time we will be proceeding with the closing arguments from counsel. And Mr. G, are you ready for your summation? Yes, Your Honor.
The closing argument is interesting because you don't write the whole thing ahead of time. While the trial is going on, I'm taking notes on everything that Spencer is bringing up so that I can make sure to fold it into my closing argument and rebut any last-minute things he tries to throw in our direction.
He was angry. He was angry, and he killed Mr. Tucker. We know it because his DNA was under the fingernail of our victim. We know it because we know that he has at least once in his life, fairly recently, possessed a firearm that shoots 9mm rounds. We know it because the defendant had a generic key card. It was in the bottom of his junk drawer in his kitchen. The defendant hated Mr. Tucker. Whether he was willing to say it on the stand or not, he hated him.
The problem with the robbery theory: Mr. Tucker still had $350 in cash in a money clip. Not only would this be a robbery, but it would be a very specific robbery for a very specific thing. The defense will be asking you to believe Mr. Mercer because he is the key to the defense's case. But you shouldn't.
The defendant was angry. He was infuriated. He was upset. The burden on the state is to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt. Based on the facts, based on reason, based on the evidence, I'm asking you, ladies and gentlemen, to find the defendant guilty. Thank you. All right, thank you, counsel.
So Michelle's about to do her closing argument. She's going to have to really hone in on the key pieces of evidence that favor the defense. If she hits home just those key things, I think she'll be in good shape to cast reasonable doubt, which is all she needs to do to win the case.
We're going to have to weave in a couple of key pieces of new information. Okay, let's do it. All right, go. Oh my God, LegalEagle, legal eaglet, and the legal eaglet. Miss Khare, are you ready to present your closing argument? Yes, Your Honor.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, in the game of baseball, it's three strikes and you're out. I urge you to recall three items missing from the prosecution's story. Three things cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case.
First, Terry Gerch's investigation of this matter was factually incomplete. He failed to do fingerprint analysis. He failed to do gunpowder analysis. And most of all, he failed this court system by focusing in on only Mr. Thornhill. This is strike one.
Second, Dr. Wilson's testimony confirmed that there were multiple parties who disliked Mr. Tucker, the victim. This is strike two.
Third, the eyewitness testimony from Mr. Thornhill's longtime friend, Drew Mercer, showed at the exact time of the murder he was at home winding down from a long day at work, watching the Mets beat the Dodgers in the second game of the league. The prosecution has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, and I hope you see, just like I do, there's plenty to doubt here. I urge you to do the right thing and let this innocent man walk home. Not guilty.
All right, thank you, Miss Khare. All right, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, at this time I will go through the closing instructions to prepare you for your deliberations in this matter. When you go to the jury room, the first thing you should do is choose a foreperson.
Well, everyone, thank you so much for being attentive all day. So I think the prosecution's case suffers because the investigation itself was kind of bogus. I'm really struggling with the lack of evidence to convict the suspect. Did the state do its job beyond a reasonable doubt? No. I feel that they zoned in on the defendant from the get-go because he dislikes Mr. Tucker. I dislike a lot of people. I'm not going to kill them.
But what he said, if it was a robbery, a third person, there was still money in Mr. Tucker's wallet. I'm struggling with the roommate. I'm not sure, is he telling the truth? Like the friend said, when he came into the house it was a normal day. They watched the game, and then when they really started to question him, he went back on what he said and he started to say, "Oh yeah, he was upset. He did tell me that he had a bad day. He seemed clammy."
What is the chance that somebody comes and robs him the same day that he's having an argument, right? Our job is not to find who is the culprit. We can only assume so many motives and everything. That's the tough thing, all the assumptions. You don't have to swipe. The case is not on.
All right, back on the record on the matter of State versus Thornhill. All the attorneys are present, the defendant is present, and all the jurors are present. Juror number one, I've been informed by the court bailiff that you are the foreperson. Has the jury reached a verdict? Yes, we have. Can you please give the form over to the court bailiff? Thank you.
The jury in this above-entitled matter finds the defendant not guilty of the crime of murder in violation of MPC 210.2. Let's go! Mr. Thornhill, you are free to go. Your Honor, may we celebrate?
I am like, man, I really thought I was going to jail there. Thank you guys. Thank you so much. By and large, she was amazing. She actually learned how to do all of this.
And I'll be honest, the verdict does not surprise me. She did a really effective job, and what I'm seeing is a lot of adaptability that is frankly pretty surprising to me for someone who's had 24 hours of experience in the law.
Last but not least, I'm honestly really impressed with the way that Michelle has improved. I'm particularly proud that I think Michelle understands what hearsay is, which is something that gives even law students and lawyers trouble. Does this mean I'm a partner now? We'll discuss that later. Yeah.
Article published · Updated