LP_3

Context:
Grade level: 6
Length of Lesson: 75 min+ (my joint construction may bleed into the
next class)
Description of setting, students, and curriculum and any other
important contextual characteristics:
Springfield middle school is a diverse public school. About a third of the
students are white, about half African American, and the rest mostly Latino
and Asian Americans. Five of my students are ELLs. Three are Spanish, one
French, and one Twi. Julio, Eduardo, and Manuela are developing speakers,
and Eduardo is bordering on expanding. Of the three, Manuela has the
strongest literacy in her home language and will benefit from writing her draft
in Spanish and having a friend help her translate. The boys do not write well
in any language, and need more scaffolding constructing grammatical
sentences. I would put them both at about level 2 in writing and level 3 in
reading. Manuela is at about level 4 in each. Manuela will be able to construct
an argument and support it with evidence but the boys will need more
scaffolding to do this.
Jacques is a recent immigrant from France. His first language literacy is very
strong and his parents both speak almost fluent English. Jacques is a
beginning speaker and has trouble understanding directions. However, his
parents are vey supportive and can help translate his writing. On his own, he
is a level 1 speaker, listener, and writer. He is a level 2 reader because he can
draw on his French literacy. However, the writing he does at home is closer to
level 4 because his parents help with grammar and vocab, and he already
possesses the skills to structure logical paragraphs in French.
Naa is from Ghana. She is very social and speaks nearly fluent English.
However, she never learned basic English phonics. Her spelling is atrocious to
the point of being illegible. She is a level 5 speaker and listener, a level 4
reader, and a level 2 writer. She is capable of developing oral arguments and
supporting them with evidence, but will often fail to provide evidence in
either speaking or writing unless prompted.
Students have just finished reading Chains by Laurie Halse Anderson. Now,
they will be conducting a mock trial of the main character, Isabel, who has
been charged with espionage and treason (Isabel has been spying for the
rebels during the American Revolution). Students have been assigned to
either the prosecution or the defense. The groups are heterogeneous based
on ability, but I have concentrated my most independent students in the
defense. This is because I am only going to model the prosecutions opening
statement for the whole class. Then, while I perform a joint construction task
with the prosecution, the defense will analyze their model. Then I will do a
joint construction with the defense. It would be ideal to do this lesson with a

coteacher so we could split them up and each teach the lesson to half the
class, but I think the lesson can work solo.
Before this class, students did a graffiti brainstorm in groups of three where
each group answered 4 question:
What arguments will the other side use against me?
What will my witnesses say?
What facts do I want the jury to know about the case?
What conclusions do I want the jury to reach (not just guilty/not guilty)?
After the draft portion, I will give a lesson on revision. I will read the drafts
and pick the strongest one for each side. I will have students read the
strongest draft from another class and explain why it is strong. I will
emphasize content and organization over mechanics. Specifically, I want to
show how strong essays group individual points of evidence into paragraphs
that begin with topic sentences.
After revisions, I will provide directed comments and have students create a
personalized rubric like Gallagher suggests.

VA SOLs:
6.7: The student will write narration, description, exposition, and
persuasion.
A: Identify audience and purpose.
C: Organize writing structure to fit mode or topic.

CCSS: (Which will not exist by the time I start teaching)

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.6.1
Write arguments to support claims with clear reasons and relevant
evidence.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.6.1.B
Support claim(s) with clear reasons and relevant evidence, using
credible sources and demonstrating an understanding of the topic or
text.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.6.1.D
Establish and maintain a formal style.

Objectives (KUD)
Students will understand that
1. You dont have to be a professional to start writing like one
(CCSS 6.1.D)
Students will know:
1. That they can look to professional models to understand and
imitate specific modes of writing (VSOL 6.7a, c)
2. What kind of questions strong writers ask when they analyze a
model (6.7.c)
3. How to analyze structure and language of a model (6.7a and c)
4. That effective arguments usually start with a hook (6.7 c)
5. How to organize evidence (ccss 6.1)
6. That drafts dont have to follow a model exactly.
7. That drafts are not supposed to be good; they are just a way to
lay out ideas.
Students will be able to:
1. Imitate the structure of a professional model (6.7 a and c, CCSS
6.1.D)
2. Build a draft as a way to set out ideas (CCSS 6.1.A and B)
3. Introduce an argument with a compelling hook
4. Support that argument with logically sequenced evidence (ccss
6.1
5. Consider an audience when writing arguments
Assessments:
Diagnostic:
This unit is the classs first foray into persuasive writing. They have
done a brief personal narrative task and have written summaries of

short stories we have read in class. From this data, I have concluded
that about half the class needs help structuring a paragraph by
developing a topic sentence. I will address this in the revision portion.
During the summary exercises, about two thirds of students at least
occasionally stated facts from the text without explicitly connecting
them to the main idea.In the last class, I gave students examples of
persuasive writing by students. They had to analyze the examples and
explain which ones were best and why. Then they wrote a reflection
paragraph, which showed me which students understood what good
organization and strong evidence looked like.
Formative:
Exit slip: I will write three questions on the board and students will turn
in notecards.
1. Define two new vocabulary words you will use in your opening
statement.
2. List three questions you could ask yourself while you read a
model.
3. What did you learn about organization of an opening statement
from reading this model?
Students will have seven minutes at the end of class to complete this.
This will be graded on a three-tiered scale (check minus, check, check
plus) and I will return these at the beginning of next class. I will start
the next class by addressing misconceptions about vocabulary
definitions. That should only take two or three minutes. For number 2,
almost any question is valid as long as it is broad enough. If the
questions are too specific, I will write too specific on the papers and
deduct from a check plus to a check. Students will be able to correct
these at the beginning of class to raise their grades. For number 3, I
expect a range from ??? to a full paragraph. It really doesnt make
sense to reteach the whole lesson, so in order for students to raise
their grade on the exit slip, they will have to copy down a classmates
notes and bring their notebooks up to me so I can at least see that
they will be able to access the information in the future.
I will not be differentiating the exit card because I think the questions
are broad enough that students will have room to challenge
themselves.

I will read and provide feedback on drafts, but that will not be in this
class period. I will point out a maximum of six grammatical errors and
one overarching technical suggestion, which students will incorporate
into their personalized rubrics. In the feedback, I will also mark craft
issues. I will be sure to check if students use a compelling hook (D3)
and if they use enough evidence (D4)

Summative:
During the trial, students will present their final piece of testimony. All
students will be responsible for collecting textual evidence for their
side, and each student will be responsible for writing a piece of the
trial. To make sure that every student is absorbing my writing lesson, I
will make every student compose an opening argument for their side.
Students will be assessed according to a personalized rubric that they
will help create. I would like to see one category for paragraph
organization and, one category for logical progression of ideas, which
will be class-wide, and two personal categories, one for technique and
one for mechanics.
I will read and provide feedback on drafts, but that will not be in this
class period. I will point out a maximum of six grammatical errors and
one overarching technical suggestion, which students will incorporate
into their personalized rubrics.

Materials Needed:
Sample opening statements (Appendix AB and CB)
Sample opening statement in Spanish (Appendix D) not yet available
Sample opening statement in other language if I can find one
White board
Projector
Opening statement clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=YNIGhIoF8g0)

Differentiated opening statement (Appendix C)

Procedure:
Beginning arrangement: standard rows facing the white board.
Once we break into factions, this will change.
I.

Welcome/greeting/announcements (2 min)

Come on in everyone. Sit wherever. Im going to separate you

into prosecution and defense in a minute, but were going to
start as a whole class. Im pleased to see that the custodial
staff has left up our graffiti exercise. I figured they would, but
you can never be sure. Were going to use those for this next
step in our process. Are you all ready to become lawyers?
II.

Hook/bridge/lesson opening 10 min

Last class, we brainstormed about what each side wanted to

argue. Today were going to look at how we argue it. You see,
court arguments are their own genre. Can I get a thumbs up,
who is familiar with the word genre?
I dont know if this word is part of an elementary school curriculum. If
not, I will briefly introduce it. First, I will ask students to try to define it.
Students might say something like what youre writing about, in
which case Ill respond thats part of it. Can you give me some
examples? The given answer was not quite right, but the student I am
questioning may still know the answer but not how to express it.
Asking for an example could help, regardless of what answer the
student ventures. Then, Ill say, A genre is just a certain way of
writing. Genre defines expectations about which words you use
and how you structure sentences and ideas. Another thumbs
up, how many of you have watched Law and Order or
another court show?
Im not trying to gather data here; I just want to present something
that many students can relate to their real lives. Those shows all use
the genre of legal argument. Those writers are pretty good at
imitating how real lawyers speak. I want to take five minutes
to hear what you all know about the way people talk in court.
I will write a quick KWL on the board. Yall are old pros at this.
What do you know about court speak? Responses might be
something like youre supposed to call the judge your honor or you
can make an objection when someone isnt following the rules. To this

last one, I might add Objection is a good word. What other words
do we know that are specific to this genre?
After this, I am going to show the first five minutes of a clip of an
opening statement and ask students to pick out what they notice. The
KWL is a little bit of a pre-assessment, but mostly Im just using it to
activate prior knowledge. If students think about their preconceptions
before watching, they will be more likely to evaluate those
preconceptions. They might be better able to articulate the elements
of this genre if I ask them to attempt the task before analyzing a
model. I will prompt them to think of words related to trials. Some
examples may be judge, defendant, plaintiff, prosecution,
suit, bailiff, and attorney .

Lesson body 55 min

Im going to pass out a copy of the opening statement of the
prosecution in the case Goldberg v. texas, also known as the
wig shop murder case. It happened about 13 years ago in
2003. Ive cut out some parts so it all fits on one sheet of
paper, but I think once we talk about it, you should be able to
get a good idea of what court speak sounds like.
Im going to read the statement out loud, and after each
paragraph Im going to pause and ask for your thoughts about
the progression that this argument takes. Why does the lawyer
start here or use this piece of evidence? Why does she use a
certain word? Together were going to figure out how to write
one of our own based on this model.
(Name the defendant) is a killer. And the evidence in this case
will show you that the people in this world who think they
know him best know him the least.
Now, why do you think the writer started with this? I will wait it
least twenty seconds before saying, take thirty seconds or so to
talk with an elbow buddy. Responses might sound something like,
because the lawyer wants us to think hes a killer or because she
doesnt want us to trust him. Ill say here, I think thats right.
Notice how you can tell what she is arguing for right away.
After hearing responses, I will weigh in: I think the prosecution
wanted the jury to think the defendant was guilty even before
they heard any evidence. This is a very simple and
straightforward first sentence. The lawyer wants to start with
the conclusion she hopes the jury will reach. In this case, the

conclusion is that the defendant is a killer. We call this opening

sentence a hook because it grabs the readers attention like
a fish being reeled in. On the board I write: 1. Hook: gets attention.
Everything I write on the board you should be marking on your
copy. And anything else you think is important that isnt on the
board.
I want to draw your attention to the point of view. It is second
person. The writer is directly addressing the jury. Write down
second person, addressing jury.
On November 27th, 1998, the busiest shopping day of the
year, the day after Thanksgiving, in the Weslayan Plaza strip
center in the back part of the plaza in a store called Wigs By
Andre, it was a slow business day that afternoon. You're going
to hear testimony that at 4:01, this defendant came into the
wig store for the second time that day, and in the wig store
working that day were two people: Roberta Ingrando, who
survived, and Manuela Silverio, who is our victim. Roberta
Ingrando is going to testify to you about what happened that
day. She's going to tell you at 4:01, she and Manny were
sitting and talking about closing down early that day when in
walked this man (indicating the defendant). She'll tell you that
the defendant went up to Manny, Manny started to hurry
toward the back room of the wig shop, and Roberta heard
Manny say something like, "You must be kidding," when the
defendant attacked her.
How about this? What is being communicated in these
paragraphs? Take responses. Students will probably say shes
summarizing what happened or shes giving background. I dont
think students will give wrong answers here, but I will ask specifically
what about the background? or what is she including in the
summary? Basically, the prosecution attorney is setting the
scene. Who, what, when, where. We dont have a why yet.
Thatll come later. I write on the board: setting the scene. Who,
what, when, where. Also, I want you to notice that the writer
calls the victim by her first name. Why do you think she does
this? Take responses. They might say to make her more familiar or
because youre more likely to remember someone if you know their
name. Ill say, Ill even take it a step further than familiar. Its
probably to make us feel like shes our friend.
Police officers arrived. The scene was processed. The State's
going to tell you about all the evidence. There wasn't any DNA
that links to this defendant. There was no blood recovered in
the getaway truck that belongs to the defendant. There were

no fingerprints in the whole crime scene that belong to this

defendant. No money was taken from the cash register. No
jewelry was taken from any of the three victims. No purses
were taken, and there were three of them left there. No wallet
was taken. Robbery was not the motive.
This paragraph is interesting. It seems like the prosecutor is
actually pointing out gaps in her case. Why is she doing this?
Whats her strategy? Take responses. Students might say, to show
that they arent actually gaps or to be honest. Ill say, or at least
to seem honest, right? Shes anticipating an argument that
the defense is going to make. She doesnt have DNA evidence,
so shes going to admit it so the jury knows she isnt trying to
hide anything. Then, youll see shes going to try to downplay
this weakness in her case. The prosecutor actually goes on to
explain why there isnt any blood at the crime scene, but I took
that part out because its a little graphic. I write on the board:
admit holes in case, try to fill them.
But as the police showed up that day, things began to happen
very, very quickly. You ask yourselves, "Well, then, (the
prosecutor uses her own name), why are we in a courtroom
today with this man indicted for murder?" This is why. Driving
down the parking lot that day was a miracle and that miracle
was a witness whose name is Randall Beckman. Randall
Beckman is a doctor. He's a resident. And he will testify to you
that, at 4:01, he had just bought some dog food from the Petco
right across the way from the front door of the wig store. As he
was driving away from the Petco, he saw a man, this defendant
(pointing to the defendant), running out the door of the wig
store, and it drew his attention because the man was running
out in such a hurry that he thought, "I wonder if that guy
needs some help? I wonder if something's wrong? Maybe I can
help."
So, Randall Beckman will tell you he followed this defendant all
the way from the front door of the wig store about 150 yards
away to the point where this defendant climbed inside a truck.
Randall Beckman will tell you that during the time he followed
him, the defendant turned and looked at him at least two
times. When the defendant got inside the truck you'll hear
described as a new black Lincoln Navigator with luggage rails
on top and sideboards on the side, the defendant looked at
Randall Beckman. As he drove off, they passed each other,
driver to driver, as the defendant drove away from the scene.

Dr. Randall Beckman will tell you as he drove away, he wrote

down immediately the license plate number of that Navigator,
1WL V84, and he will tell you that he's 100 percent sure that
he wrote down the right license plate number.
With that license plate number, Houston Police Homicide
Division immediately went to work. They took that license
plate number, they ran it on their computer, and they found an
address belonging to that truck. That address is XXXX
Dunstan, minutes away from the wig shop. You're going to see
a videotape of how long it takes to drive there - how long it
takes timewise to get there.
I tied that big chunk together because it all kind of flows. How
would you summarize this section? It might go something like
randall Beckman saw the defendant leaving the store and wrote down
the license plate number. I might fill in a gap and say something like,
and the police used that evidence to find the car. Then Ill say,
Shes telling a story. What does she want the reader, in this
case the jury, to learn from the story? Take responses. maybe
she wants us to know how they caught the guy and all say thats
true, and she wants you to know who the person is that helped
catch the defendant. Shes introducing a key witness. Heres
an aspect of this genre that doesnt appear in other genres. In
court, some of your evidence isnt going to come from your
writing. Its going to come from other people, from witnesses.
You have to explain how what theyre going to say ties in to
your argument. Write on the board: introduce witness and connect to
case. Also, I want to point out that she told the jury that
Beckman is a doctor. That makes him seem more trustworthy.
Still, you ask yourself: But why? Why would a man like that do
a crime like this? The evidence will show you that in (four
years ago) the defendant had a friend who he grew up with, a
man named Josh Vogel. Josh Vogel spent three years with the
Israeli Army. During the three years that Josh Vogel spent in
the Israeli Army, this defendant wrote letters to him and you're
going to hear a lot of people during the course of the trial say
that this defendant is not the kind of man who would do a
crime like this. But Josh Vogel will tell you that this defendant
told him a lot of things he didn't tell anybody else, and you'll
get to read those letters.
Those letters say things about the rage that fills him, that
burns for release. He has a woman friend that is scared of him.
She's scared due to the anger she feels coming out of him. He

talks about feeling himself change into a violent young man,

and he likes it. That's the kind of man that the real world
doesn't know about.
Now were getting a little dark. So what does the author want
us to know here? Take responses. that the defendant is mean? or
that hes violent? Why does she want us to think the defendant
is secretly violent? Take responses. because then he could be the
killer. Yes, because were more likely to think he is guilty if he
has a naturally violent nature. A desire to commit violence
could be a motive. Write on the board: establish a motive Now, I
have a question about organization. Why does the prosecutor
save this for near the end? Why doesnt she start by telling us
hes violent? Take responses. Maybe because then wed forget by
the end. Id say, thats a good point. Theres actual
psychological evidence proving that people remember things
better that they hear most recently. Its called the recency
effect. You dont have to write that down, its just food for
thought. Why else might she save this for the end? Because
she wants to make us curious about why he did it? Thats another
good thought. Leaving a key piece of information until the end
builds suspense
What I want you all to think about as youre writing your
drafts is you dont have to write your arguments in the same
order as this prosecutor does. In your drafts, you dont even
have to think about the order because that can change when
you revise; you just have to get down the information you
want to include. I recommend following the order of this
prosecutor, but if you think of a reason why your statement
might be more effective in a different order, please change it.
Before we go on, I just want to note one little thing. She says,
the evidence will show, which is a very common lawyer
phrase. Using phrases and vocabulary that is common in your
genre is a good way to make your work look more authentic.
Lets look at the last paragraph.
In all this evidence that you're going to hear for
approximately the next two weeks about the fact that there
was no blood found in the Navigator, there were no
fingerprints anywhere connecting this defendant, that there
was no DNA that links back to this defendant, the State never
recovered a murder weapon, all of that, but one thing is going
to be lost, and that is the sad true fact that Manuela Silverio
lost her life at the age of 54, and she left behind two
daughters that she raised all by herself. She came over here
from Cuba, and she did a job which she loved, which was fixing

the wigs for people who were cancer victims to try and bring
some comfort in their lives, and she loved that job, and now
she's dead. Why is she dead? Because this defendant just
wanted to kill somebody!
What do yall think of that ending? Take responses. They might
say, it was really sad and Ill say why did it make you sad?
Because it was like a real person had died. How do you decide
what to say at the end? Take responses. you want the jury to feel
sad? How else might a prosecutor want the jury to feel? What
about the defense lawyer? they might want the jury to feel angry.
Angry about what? That the person is dead. What might the
defense want the jury to feel? maybe they want the jury to be
angry that the defendant is being wrongfully accused. Yes, so the
takeaway her is that this attorney used an emotional appeal at
the end. Write on board: conclusion, emotional appeal. Regardless
of what the evidence tells us, she wants the jury to be sad and
angry that the victim died. She wants to zoom out and show us
the big picture. What is the big takeaway the writer wants the
reader to get? A guilty verdict. Write on board: big takeaway.
So to review our model, the prosecutor starts with a hook to
get our attention and tell us what she intends to prove. Next,
she sets the scene. Who, what, where, when. Then she admits
a hole in her case and tries to fill it. After that, she introduces
an important witness and previews what that witness is going
to say. Next, she addresses the motive. She finishes with an
emotional appeal. Any questions?
Students might ask how long their own statements have to be. Ill say
Thats up to you, but I would probably keep it under eight
hundred words. For the draft, it really doesnt matter at all
because part of the revising process is taking out stuff you
dont need. Just make sure you cover whats important.
Students might ask if they can include things that arent in the model.
Ill say, definitely. Lawyers make decisions on a case-by-case
basis. Your case is different from the models.
At this point, I will move from the modeling portion to the joint
construction portion. I will do a joint construction with the prosecution
first while the defense analyzes the model for a defense opening
statement. I will do a joint construction with them after. I consider this
still part of the drafting process, so I will be very loosely involved. My
goal is to steer students toward the model if they stray. I want them to

see that drafts are messy.

This part is very hard to script, but I will give some examples of how it
might look:
How do we want to start? Whats the first thing we want to
say?
ladies and gentlemen of the jury?
yeah. i like how youre using the jargon write ladies and
gentlemen of the jury.
should we start by just saying hello?
great idea. Ill put a carrot in front of the first sentence and add good
morning
now what? How are we going to start our argument?
By telling the jury what we want them to believe.
Which is?
That Isabel is guilty.
Guilty of what?
Espionage and treason Ill write, the defendant is guilty of treason
notice how I wrote defendant, more of our court jargon. What
else?
maybe we should trash her character like the lawyer did in the
example. Write, the testimony will show that Isabel was disobedient,
talked back to her mistress and even assaulted a white person
I write all that.
Thats great! Are you satisified with that as opening
paragraph? What would be the topic of the next paragraph?
Set the scene! And so it continues in this vein.
Wrap up 8 min
End on formative assessment. Now Im going to write some
questions on the board (see formative assessment section above).
Youll have about eight minutes to work and then youll turn it
in to me.
At the end Enjoy your lunch! Ill see yall next class
Attention to individual student needs:
I am trying a new approach to differentiation in this lesson. Instead of
differentiating the model or the task, I differentiated the level of
assistance given to certain students. I have assigned the role of judge
to three of my strongest students. Instead of writing their own opening
statements, these students will be assisting others who are struggling
with the task. One of these judges will be Juana, who is a bilingual
Spanish speaker. I will encourage her to assist the three Spanish ELLs,
with a focus on the boys. Manuela is largely independent, but will need

help translating her argument from Spanish to English.

Another of my judges, Spencer, is good friends with Naa. After Naa
works for a while to think about what she wants to say, Spencer can
help her get it down on paper.
As for Jacques, my plan is to inform his parents of my goals for
the lesson beforehand. I will ask him simple questions throughout the
joint construction so he feels involved. I will make sure my third judge,
Cardale, spends some time with Jacques.
If I implement this lesson plan as a teacher, I want to leave open the
option to differentiate the text for my ELLs. I tried and failed to find a
Spanish opening statement, but if I learn of such a resource over the
course of my teaching career, I will certainly use it. However, I was
able to differentiate the text some by making a digital version with
comments explaining certain unfamiliar words. Students will choose
whether or not they want to use this text (Appendix C).
Both my formative and summative assessments are differentiated to
different readiness levels. The personalized rubric will reflect where
each student sits in relationship to the learning objectives. For
example, the students who need most help with organization will have
a comment about organization on their returned draft and will revise
accrodingly
Technology Use:
Ill project the model while I read it.
Specific insights from the reading:
Generally, my lesson follows Gibbons 4-step approach to writing in
unfamiliar genres. In the class before, students worked on step 1,
building a knowledge base, by brainstorming and returning to the text
to find support for their ideas. In this class, I start with step 2, the
model, and then move to step 3, the joint construction. Gibbons
emphasized that step 2 should be largely language-based. I made an
effort to point out unique language elements like second person voice
and genre-specific phrases. Gibbons also says step 2 should point out
organizational elements, which I point out in my analysis by asking
questions like Why do you think the writer didnt say this earlier?
Gallagher stresses the importance of using professional models. He
says he worked with students to establish a suggested checklist of
features that they based on a model, which is what I tried to do.
Gallagher actually uses this technique in the revision portion of writing,
but that did not seem appropriate for my particular lesson because
some kids have zero exposure to court writing. I thought they should

have a model first.

Appendix A
THE PROSECUTOR (Ms. Siegler): (Name the defendant) is a killer. And
the evidence in this case will show you that the people in this world
who think they know him best know him the least.
On November 27th, 1998, the busiest shopping day of the year, the
day after Thanksgiving, in the Weslayan Plaza strip center in the back
part of the plaza in a store called Wigs By Andre, it was a slow business
day that afternoon.
You're going to hear testimony that at 4:01, this defendant came into
the wig store for the second time that day, and in the wig store
working that day were two people: Roberta Ingrando, who survived,
and Manuela Silverio, who is our victim. Roberta Ingrando is going to
testify to you about what happened that day. She's going to tell you at
4:01, she and Manny were sitting and talking about closing down early
that day when in walked this man (indicating the defendant).
She'll tell you that the defendant went up to Manny, Manny started to
hurry toward the back room of the wig shop, and Roberta heard Manny
say something like, "You must be kidding," when the defendant
attacked her.

Police officers arrived. The scene was processed. The State's going to
tell you about all the evidence. There wasn't any DNA that links to this
defendant. There was no blood recovered in the getaway truck that
belongs to the defendant. There were no fingerprints in the whole
crime scene that belong to this defendant. No money was taken from
the cash register. No jewelry was taken from any of the three victims.
No purses were taken, and there were three of them left there. No
wallet was taken. Robbery was not the motive.

But as the police showed up that day, things began to happen very,
very quickly. You ask yourselves, "Well, then, (the prosecutor uses her
own name), why are we in a courtroom today with this man indicted
for murder?" This is why. Driving down the parking lot that day was a
miracle and that miracle was a witness whose name is Randall
Beckman. Randall Beckman is a doctor. He's a resident. And he will
testify to you that, at 4:01, he had just bought some dog food from the
Petco right across the way from the front door of the wig store. As he
was driving away from the Petco, he saw a man, this defendant

(pointing to the defendant), running out the door of the wig store, and
it drew his attention because the man was running out in such a hurry
that he thought, "I wonder if that guy needs some help? I wonder if
something's wrong? Maybe I can help."
So, Randall Beckman will tell you he followed this defendant all the
way from the front door of the wig store about 150 yards away to the
point where this defendant climbed inside a truck. Randall Beckman
will tell you that during the time he followed him, the defendant turned
and looked at him at least two times. When the defendant got inside
the truck you'll hear described as a new black Lincoln Navigator with
luggage rails on top and sideboards on the side, the defendant looked
at Randall Beckman. As he drove off, they passed each other, driver to
driver, as the defendant drove away from the scene.
Dr. Randall Beckman will tell you as he drove away, he wrote down
immediately the license plate number of that Navigator, 1WL V84, and
he will tell you that he's 100 percent sure that he wrote down the right
license plate number.
With that license plate number, Houston Police Homicide Division
immediately went to work. They took that license plate number, they
ran it on their computer, and they found an address belonging to that
truck. That address is XXXX Dunstan, minutes away from the wig shop.
You're going to see a videotape of how long it takes to drive there how long it takes timewise to get there.

Still, you ask yourself: But why? Why would a man like that do a crime
like this? The evidence will show you that in (four years ago) the
defendant had a friend who he grew up with, a man named Josh Vogel.
Josh Vogel spent three years with the Israeli Army. During the three
years that Josh Vogel spent in the Israeli Army, this defendant wrote
letters to him and you're going to hear a lot of people during the
course of the trial say that this defendant is not the kind of man who
would do a crime like this. But Josh Vogel will tell you that this
defendant told him a lot of things he didn't tell anybody else, and you'll
get to read those letters.
Those letters say things about the rage that fills him, that burns for
release. He has a woman friend that is scared of him. She's scared due
to the anger she feels coming out of him. He talks about feeling
himself change into a violent young man, and he likes it. That's the
kind of man that the real world doesn't know about.


In all this evidence that you're going to hear for approximately the next
two weeks about the fact that there was no blood found in the
Navigator, there were no fingerprints anywhere connecting this
defendant, that there was no DNA that links back to this defendant, the
State never recovered a murder weapon, all of that, but one thing is
going to be lost, and that is the sad true fact that Manuela Silverio lost
her life at the age of 54, and she left behind two daughters that she
raised all by herself. She came over here from Cuba, and she did a job
which she loved, which was fixing the wigs for people who were cancer
victims to try and bring some comfort in their lives, and she loved that
job, and now she's dead. Why is she dead? Because this defendant just
wanted to kill somebody!

Appendix B
DEFENSE COUNSEL (Mr. DeGuerin): This is a case of misidentification.
The experts will tell you that the most persuasive and yet the least
reliable evidence in criminal cases is eyewitness identification
testimony. The expert will tell you that the desire to find who's
responsible is a very powerful desire, and the experts will tell you that
a person who resembles the actual culprit is likely to be misidentified
because of that.
The experts will tell you that what you look for is a change in the
eyewitness' perceptions. And so, what the evidence will show in this
case is that soon after Manuela Silverio was stabbed twice and died
and soon after Roberta Ingrando was stabbed14 times and almost died
and soon after Roland Ingrando, her husband, who came to her rescue
and wrestled with the killer was stabbed twice, the police showed
Roberta Ingrando a videotape that had (name the defendant) in it.
You'll see that that videotape was rather skewed. You'll see that rather
than trying to find persons who fit the description given by the
witnesses, and the description was a young man, blond hair, short hair,
about six feet tall, anywhere from 140 pounds to 180 pounds, dressed
in a black jogging outfit with white stripes on it, rather than trying to fit
the fill-ins in that line-up to that description, three people were at least
two to three inches shorter than the description. Two people were at
least an inch taller than the description.
Although the description was of a young man with no facial hair, the
evidence will show that two of the people in the line-up had facial hair,
mustache, and goatee. And although the description was of a white
male, one of the persons in the line-up was clearly a Hispanic male.
And the evidence will show that when shown that video, Roberta
Ingrando, rather than being certain, was very tentative in her
identification of (name the defendant) as perhaps the person who
stabbed her. It will show that she said she was not certain, she was
pressed, and the evidence will show that the detectives pressed her:
"Well, how certain are you that you have picked out this man?" "Can
you give us on a scale of one to ten how certain you are?" And the
evidence will show that she hesitantly said, "About 80."
Randall Beckman, the young man who was in the parking lot, here's
what Randall Beckman told the police. First, he said he saw a young
man run out of the wig shop, and he described this young man about
six feet tall, 18 years old with blond hair, and he said that he had on a
black jogging suit. Dr. Beckman followed -- Dr. Beckman was in his car,

a small Volkswagen Golf, and Dr. Beckman says he followed this person
as the person ran through the parking lot.
This is a diagram of part of the parking lot, the part that really makes a
difference here. I'm going to zoom in just a bit closer so you can see.
You may not be able to see where I'm pointing is the wig store, Wigs By
Andre. It's the north end of the Weslayan parking lot, the west side of
Weslayan and the north side of Bissonnet. Dr. Beckman says that he,
Dr. Beckman, had come out of the Petco store and gotten in the car,
and he was driving out when he saw a young man come out of the wig
shop and run to the west across the parking lot.

"How," (the defender states the given name of the prosecutor) says,
"could that be?" How could the doctor have just written down a license
number and have it come back to a black Lincoln Navigator in that
neighborhood? That question is a question that should be on your mind
and the answer, which you will see in evidence, is that 18, 18 Lincoln
Navigators were sold by Texan Lincoln Mercury with almost the
identical license plate, one or two digits difference. The evidence will
show that seven Lincoln Navigators have almost the identical license
number and those seven are dark Lincoln Navigators.
Was Dr. Beckman mistaken? What period of time, how much time did
he have to see the license number? How much time did he have to get
it right? Dr. Beckman himself testifies under oath that he had less than
a one and a half seconds to see -- excuse me -- to see the killer when
he first saw the killer. Dr. Beckman said he had less than one and a half
seconds to see the killer as the car drove past him, one and half
seconds.

I agree with (name the prosecutor) that from 3:50 until about 4:25 no
person is going to say that they talked to (name the defendant), but
what the evidence will show was that at 3:50 (name the defendant)
talked to (name a witness), made the final plans for the football game
and by 4:25 or thereabouts, (name the defendant) was at the football
field dressed out to play football.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: There will be no blood on (name the defendant).

There will be no DNA of (name the defendant). There will be no hairs,
fingerprints, clothes with blood on them. (Name the defendant) is not

guilty. Thank you.

Appendix C
THE PROSECUTOR (Ms. Siegler): (Name the defendant) is a killer. And
the evidence in this case will show you that the people in this world
who think they know him best know him the least.
On November 27th, 1998, the busiest shopping day of the year, the
day after Thanksgiving, in the Weslayan Plaza strip center in the back
part of the plaza in a store called Wigs By Andre, it was a slow business
day that afternoon.
You're going to hear testimony that at 4:01, this defendant came into
the wig store for the second time that day, and in the wig store
working that day were two people: Roberta Ingrando, who survived,
and Manuela Silverio, who is our victim. Roberta Ingrando is going to
testify to you about what happened that day. She's going to tell you at
4:01, she and Manny were sitting and talking about closing down early
that day when in walked this man (indicating the defendant).
She'll tell you that the defendant went up to Manny, Manny started to
hurry toward the back room of the wig shop, and Roberta heard Manny
say something like, "You must be kidding," when the defendant
attacked her.

Police officers arrived. The scene was processed. The State's going to
tell you about all the evidence. There wasn't any DNA that links to this
defendant. There was no blood recovered in the getaway truck that
belongs to the defendant. There were no fingerprints in the whole
crime scene that belong to this defendant. No money was taken from
the cash register. No jewelry was taken from any of the three victims.
No purses were taken, and there were three of them left there. No
wallet was taken. Robbery was not the motive.


But as the police showed up that day, things began to happen very,
very quickly. You ask yourselves, "Well, then, (the prosecutor uses her
own name), why are we in a courtroom today with this man indicted
for murder?" This is why. Driving down the parking lot that day was a
miracle and that miracle was a witness whose name is Randall
Beckman. Randall Beckman is a doctor. He's a resident. And he will
testify to you that, at 4:01, he had just bought some dog food from the
Petco right across the way from the front door of the wig store. As he
was driving away from the Petco, he saw a man, this defendant
(pointing to the defendant), running out the door of the wig store, and
it drew his attention because the man was running out in such a hurry
that he thought, "I wonder if that guy needs some help? I wonder if
something's wrong? Maybe I can help."
So, Randall Beckman will tell you he followed this defendant all the
way from the front door of the wig store about 150 yards away to the
point where this defendant climbed inside a truck. Randall Beckman
will tell you that during the time he followed him, the defendant turned
and looked at him at least two times. When the defendant got inside
the truck you'll hear described as a new black Lincoln Navigator with
luggage rails on top and sideboards on the side, the defendant looked
at Randall Beckman. As he drove off, they passed each other, driver to
driver, as the defendant drove away from the scene.
Dr. Randall Beckman will tell you as he drove away, he wrote down
immediately the license plate number of that Navigator, 1WL V84, and
he will tell you that he's 100 percent sure that he wrote down the right
license plate number.
With that license plate number, Houston Police Homicide Division
immediately went to work. They took that license plate number, they
ran it on their computer, and they found an address belonging to that
truck. That address is XXXX Dunstan, minutes away from the wig shop.
You're going to see a videotape of how long it takes to drive there how long it takes timewise to get there.

Still, you ask yourself: But why? Why would a man like that do a crime
like this? The evidence will show you that in (four years ago) the
defendant had a friend who he grew up with, a man named Josh Vogel.
Josh Vogel spent three years with the Israeli Army. During the three
years that Josh Vogel spent in the Israeli Army, this defendant wrote
letters to him and you're going to hear a lot of people during the

course of the trial say that this defendant is not the kind of man who
would do a crime like this. But Josh Vogel will tell you that this
defendant told him a lot of things he didn't tell anybody else, and you'll
get to read those letters.
Those letters say things about the rage that fills him, that burns for
release. He has a woman friend that is scared of him. She's scared due
to the anger she feels coming out of him. He talks about feeling
himself change into a violent young man, and he likes it. That's the
kind of man that the real world doesn't know about.

In all this evidence that you're going to hear for approximately the next
two weeks about the fact that there was no blood found in the
Navigator, there were no fingerprints anywhere connecting this
defendant, that there was no DNA that links back to this defendant, the
State never recovered a murder weapon, all of that, but one thing is
going to be lost, and that is the sad true fact that Manuela Silverio lost
her life at the age of 54, and she left behind two daughters that she
raised all by herself. She came over here from Cuba, and she did a job
which she loved, which was fixing the wigs for people who were cancer
victims to try and bring some comfort in their lives, and she loved that
job, and now she's dead. Why is she dead? Because this defendant just
wanted to kill somebody!