Conrad Black Prosecution Gets to Rebut the Closing Statement from the Defence
June 19, 2007 · By George Freeman
Greenspan opened his argument by pointing out to jurors that no shareholders who deserved the money and thus are the supposed victims in the case had taken the witness stand.
“We’ve been sitting here for 14 weeks — where are these shareholders? Where are these victims?” Greenspan asked. He acknowledged that prosecutors had played tapes of several investors complaining about Black.
In his argument, Greenspan countered by playing a tape of Mason Hawkins, lead portfolio manager for Southeastern Asset Management Inc., the second-largest investor in Hollinger International at the time.
Hawkins was heard telling a 2003 meeting Black’s management was “as good as you can find in the newspaper world.”
Assistant U.S. Attorney Julie B. Ruder delivered the government’s closing argument Monday. When all of the defense attorneys have delivered theirs, lead prosecutor Eric H. Sussman is to make a rebuttal argument.
U.S. District Judge Amy J. St. Eve is shooting for the start of jury deliberations next week.
What kind of a crackpot justice system affords the prosecution the last word? Shouldn’t such privilege go the defendant? the one supposedly innocent until proven guilty?
George, I agree it sounds strange, but I believe this is standard operating practice in U.S. criminal trials. My understanding is that, since the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, they get the last word, coming either in the form of a rebuttal to the defence close, or more simply as the last full closing argument.
See:
http://www.answers.com/topic/c.....at=biz-fin
It would seem fairer to me to let the defence go last. Given the overwhelming resources available to the state to put someone away, they shouldn’t also need the advantage of the last word, even allowing for their burden of proof.
Uh, guys, it is like that in Canada and England too.
mth, thanks for that, but my comment was a criticism of the practice, not the jurisdiction.
If the Crown has the final say in Canadian trials, it still sounds strange to me, and gives me an even greater concern about fairness than for trials in the U.S. That’s because I’m always a little suspicious of just how strongly the presumption of innocence is actually held in this country, by our society or the judiciary. If my suspicion is true, the defendant is at an even greater disadvantage already, without also losing the benefits of the final closing argument.
It apparently all makes sense to the legal profession, and certainly to the state, but to this layman it still seems quite odd.