2017 Ohio Mock Trial Case

Closing Arguments

[Rev. 12.20.17]

Your honors, opposing counsel, may it please the court:

Adam Smith was not convicted of Murder because he killed

Hayleigh Leigh. He was convicted because of the deficient

performance of his trial attorney, Christina Munoz.

Pursuant to the US Constitution, Adam is entitled to the

assistance of counsel. But more importantly, pursuant to Strickland v.

Washington, Adam is entitled to effective assistance of counsel, which

was something that Adam was cheated out of in 1999. Hayley Leigh was

a young teenage girl who was tragically murdered in 1998. It is such a

horrible thing to end the life of another, but it is just as bad to punish

someone for it who is innocent.

 Adam Smith had an alibi defense that was not presented at the

trial. Randy Johnson was certain that Adam was at homework help at

the time of the murder. But this couldn’t do anything for Adam,

because Adam’s attorney did not question him at trial. Commented [1]: We will probably take this out since
we aren't calling that witness.

Your honors, the defense is charged with the burden of proving

deficient assistance of counsel. Pursuant to Strickland v. Washington,

this must be proven by a 2-prong test. The first prong is that the

counsel performed deficiently, and the second prong is, “but for the

defense counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding

would have been different.” The state has agreed that the first prong

has been met: that counsel performed deficiently, leaving us the

burden to prove that there is a reasonable probability that, but for the

counsel’s unprofessional errors, the outcome of the trial would have

been different. We have successfully done so today.

We have heard testimony from Avery Thompson, who has been an

investigative journalist for 13 years. She interviewed Adam, Morgan

Reynolds, and Randy Johnson and discovered evidence not presented by

trial counsel. Had that evidence been presented, we believe the jury

would not have found Adam Smith Guilty. Reasonable doubt would have

been established in their minds.

Some of the evidence collected from the interviews are as Commented [2]: This paragraph is clunky and we'll
need to tear it apart some, but don't have time to do it
today. Go with it for now.

followed: Adam told her that he didn’t do it. Randy told her that Adam

was most definitely at homework help that day. And Morgan, being a

drug dealer who lied to the police, said that Adam showed her the

body. This is the same Morgan Reynolds that was interviewed by

Detective Billie Stoneridge, who said on his cross-examination that

Morgan’s interview was the deciding factor in arresting Adam. Ms.

Thompson also performed a drive time test that proves that the

state’s timeline of events in 1998 would have been nearly impossible to

achieve. The state claims that all the events took place within the span

of 2 hours and 32 minutes. Ms. Thompson was only able to make the

drive in that time once. Her average time was 2 hours and 48 minutes,

with 4 of her drives being 2 hours and 50 minutes or higher. This test
that she conducted makes it appear that the events from the state’s

timeline are nearly impossible to achieve.

This court has heard testimony from Mr. Addison Waranowitz, a

witness who gave expert testimony regarding the cell phone data in

1999, as well as today. He testified today, because in 1999, his expert

testimony was used incorrectly. Adam’s attorney did not ask him any

questions relating to the cell phone data, and only asked him about his

ethnicity as an Israeli, What he testified today was that cell phone

data is not an exact science, and in 1998 this was especially true. He

testified that Adam’s phone could ping tower L655A from many

different locations, including his house, the school, and Olentangy park.

There was no way that the cell phone records were reliable enough to

for sure place Adam at the scene of the crime. Adam’s attorney,

however, did not present any informations regarding the limits of the

cell phone data in 1999. The jury didn’t know that the data was an

imprecise science, and thus, Adam suffered for it.

 Your Honors, Hayley Leigh’s death was a horrible, horrible

tragedy. But that tragedy has been compounded by Adam’s 2 decades

of imprisonment because of his attorney’s unprofessional mistakes. We

would like to remind the court again, the State has agreed that Adam’s

counsel performed deficiently. We have established evidence today

proving that the outcome of his trial in 1999 would have turned out

differently if his attorney had provided effective representation. It is

therefore, that we respectfully request that you rule in favor of the

defendant, and that an innocent man be granted the new trial that he

is entitled to, pursuant to the US Constitution, The Buckeye

Constitution, and Buckeye Statute. Thank you.

[approx. 4:41]