Going to my opening statement, this case has been challenging. Jurors are supposed to resist external influences. There have been more external influences. The pre-trial publicity has built up over years. An imperative to pre-judge this case. An imperative that says you should come to a pre-determined verdict.
It's almost a drumbeat that says pre-judgment.
These are some of the top lawyers.
Seemingly endless flow of witnesses and documents, it can seem difficult to do your job as jurors even if the result is an unpopular result.
Mike and I talked about it a while back and he reminded me of a book. "Profiles in Courage" written by John F. Kennedy in 1957 when he was in hospital for back surgery. Talked about 8 senators who had courage to do the right thing despite the effects would be deleterious for them.
It's hard to do what's right when there is an imperative to do something else.
Each one of you made a promise to stand up and make a decision on the evidence of law. We trusted that promise at the beginning of trial, we trust it now.
The 12 of you in this case will be in it together. Even the people who don't agree with you.
There's a play called "Twelve Angry Men." One juror asking another not to throw view aside for convenience.
The government in this case has brought in witnesses that have been able to benefit from the extraordinary power they have and the pressure they can put on people. In this case, they have used that pressure. To get people to testify. But more than that, the government and media have demonized Mr. Kilpatrick and by extension my client Ferguson.
This demonization has made Kwame Kilpatrick. People don't want to be seen as helping Kwame and by extension Bobby and by extension Bernard.
In addition, certain witnesses actually rely on government for their business. Lakeshore, Akinwusi, Mr. Soave and that affects how they testify. Every witness took an oath to tell the truth. That oath is not a magic wand. It does not guarantee that you will not hear lies. Because you did.
Your obligation is to decide who is telling the truth.
The charges in this case have been detailed to you. Allegations that are not in the indictment in a formal way.
I want to turn to a count or allegation. Early on, you heard from Officer Michael Fountain. I think you can decide this allegation using common sense. Mr. Kilpatrick and Mr. Ferguson are so polarizing that they produce agendas. Fountain had the temerity to tell you he was a police officer for 20 something years and told you that Ferguson threatened his life, his wife's and children's. And he does this in the police department in front of 2 EPU officers. How plausible is that?
It doesn't hold any water. Remember some of the features. Ferguson said it wasn't on his property and wanted charges dismissed. When I asked him who was registered as tax payer. And he said, I don't know.
In grand jury, he claims that Officer Martin speaks to him and says that he should drop tickets without threatening him.
He was Officer Martin's training officer.
That doesn't stand up for number of reasons. He was asked about discrepancy by Agent Beeckman. He says well that's not my story. I was misquoted. These were his own words to the grand jury.
As my associate Mr. Higby said, that's like being misquoted in your auto-biography.
He talks about Officer Sessions who didn't become EPU until 2006 when this situation happened in 2001.
When confronted with the discrepancy, he gave an answer that made no sense. He said, that's what you said, pointing to me.
Let's talk about some of the contracts. First, 2012 which was consequence of a pilot project. Mr. Pratap testified about DLZ in 2012 pilot project. He said he had contact with engineers at DWSD. He claimed he was the inventor of the CM project. Said he sold the idea directly to Victor Mercado.
Also said that he hand-picked 2 black companies: Hayes and Ferguson Enterprises.
He's on 1347 and contract comes under schedule so 2012 happens.