Arguing to Prevail: Sexting Case. Law Assignment.

PICK ONE CASE:
Option A: John Connelly, a sixteen year old student at Curtis High School, has acknowledged having an affair with his English teacher. Both of their cell phones are in the possession of the authorities; he has nude pictures of the teacher on his phone, and she has nude pictures of him on hers. She has already pled guilty to charges of statutory rape (and a few related charges) and currently resides in the Pierce County Jail awaiting sentencing. Connelly is charged with “sexting” not only his teacher but also several female students at Curtis, two of whom have been subpoenaed to testify that they did, in fact, receive photos of his genitalia. One is in his graduating class while the other is a year younger. He claims that all the sexting—including to these students—was in fact his teacher’s idea and part of her “kink,” as he puts it, and that he only sent the pictures under direct pressure from her. If convicted, John would face possible registration as a Level I sex offender and either probation or jail time at the discretion of the judge presiding over the trial.
Option B: Aaron Hill is an ex-con with a history of alcohol and drug problems. He says he has been homeless for the past three years, the last year in Tacoma. On the night of October 31st, 2014, twelve year old Sandy Jenkins disappeared after dark while trick or treating in a neighborhood often frequented by Hill. Her body was found in a shallow grave by police dogs two days later. An autopsy found that she had not been raped nor molested in any way that could be determined; further, no physical evidence from any suspect was found on her person. Footprints matching Hill’s shoe size and type were found approximately fifty feet from the grave. Also, the bag she had been using while trick or treating was found in his possession (it has her name written on the side). Hill claims that he noticed the bag on the ground and helped himself to the candy inside, but he claims to know nothing about the slain girl.
Audience summary:
You have some leeway in imagining what kind of people you will be addressing in the jury. However, none of the jury members has ever been directly affected by a sex offence or a murder, and all purport to keep an open mind. You have helped to select this jury pool and have a reasonably good idea which way each member is likely to lean, but because you and your opposing counsel have already “fought” over jury selection, any “ringers” for the prosecution or defense have already been eliminated.
You’re arguing in front of a jury rather than talking to a judge, so you don’t need to do much legal research—if you used a lot of legal terminology, they wouldn’t be able to understand you anyway, right? However, it might still be a good idea to look up Washington case law regarding either “sexting” or manslaughter or murder. It might also be good to look at legal precedents if you want to look up actual cases.
Your “closing argument” should be a recognizable example of arguing to dominate or prevail (you should be trying to win by any legal means). Rather than provide parenthetical references and a Works Cited page, you will be required to write an annotated bibliography to accompany your closing argument.
A minimum of seven sources should be covered in the annotated bibliography, because we’re doing annotated bibliography work to replace the usual in-text citations, your closing argument should NOT be filled with quotes, summaries, or references to case law or legal experts. When you write your annotations for the bibliography, what you’re aiming for is one or two really nice paragraphs per source.
Use the past tense when referring to the crime and the trial. The trial itself will have to unfold in your imagination; you are only writing the closing argument! But in order to write that closing argument, you have to imagine the kinds of evidence and perhaps testimony that already went by. In fact, you as the attorney should probably recap at least some of the key points of the trial as you make one last stirring argument. Again, what this means is that you have to spend some time in your imagination thinking about how this trial would have unfolded and what points would have been made by the prosecution and the defense.
Here's why you shouldn't stray very far from the facts I have outlined: remember that this case has actually gone to trial. Most cases don't--they get "plea bargained out." That means that if one side or the other has a distinct advantage, both parties are likely to negotiate a plea bargain, since the trial result would almost be a foregone conclusion. Juries have been known to surprise people, but a "slam dunk" kind of case will almost never make it to trial in the first place. All of the above means that the case you write about should offer both sides a fighting chance. Whichever option you choose, you should have a decent chance to win--but again, not an overwhelming chance, or it wouldn't have gone to trial in the first place.
Note: you have some discretionary power to create your own timelines, but I do not want you to contravene the facts presented here. You may flesh out the bones of the stories presented with your own details and additional information, but again, I do not wish to see the stories substantially changed (e. g., Hill could not be in a coma, could not have an alibi, and will not have confessed).