Closing Argument Paper as the Prosecutor

Paper Three: Arguing to Prevail (Note: please scroll all the way down to see the case used for this paper)
For our third paper assignment, we will be moving into the realm of legal debate—specifically, closing arguments before a jury in a hypothetical case. Your “closing argument” should be a recognizable example of arguing to dominate or prevail (you should be trying to win by any legal means). Please see our text for examples of arguing to prevail or see me should you have questions about this aim of argumentation.
You will have in essence two options in writing this essay: role-playing a defense attorney for a murder trial or a prosecuting attorney for the murder trial. I have provided the case; details will follow if you scroll down to the end of this document.
Aim for three to six pages, typed and double-spaced. 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, with a failure to reach the minimum impacting your grade. The strength of your annotations will be factored into the paper grade as well.
Note: If you have never done an annotated bibliography, you should conduct an internet search to gain a basic familiarity with the form. I have found the Owl website associated with Purdue University to be helpful on a variety of topics, and it can help you get a feel for annotated bibliographies.
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 crime of violence, 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.
Suggestions for the paper:
Watch a few YouTube videos of actual closing arguments for inspiration. For prosecutors, it is helpful to establish a timeline of events so as to establish your knowledge of the crime; for defense attorneys, it is important to be able to respond to prosecutorial arguments and poke holes in them. (You may have to write the outline of a prosecutor’s argument for practice.)
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 manslaughter or murder. It might also be good to look at legal precedents if you want to look up actual cases. The YouTube videos and the legal research would, of course, count as sources. But you do not have to confine yourself to legal research: lots of other sources, including newspaper articles, would be legitimate here.
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. None of that stuff sounds natural in a real closing argument, and you should not include it in the misplaced belief that I require in-text citations for the paper.
When you write your annotations for the bibliography, what you’re aiming for is one or two really nice paragraphs per source. Try to remember to tell the reader what each source is about (a brief summary), how helpful each source proved to be, and how different sources rated when compared to each other. You should definitely identify your most helpful and/or authoritative source, for example.
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, and I have tried to build that into the case. 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. I hope all that makes sense.
Our case: 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, 2018, 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.
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 story with your own details and additional information, including cause of death, but again, I do not wish to see the story substantially changed (e. g., Hill could not be in a coma, could not have some other rock-solid alibi, and will not have confessed; the girl did not fall into a ditch but was actually buried by human hands--indicating foul play of some type, not an act of nature, and so on).