On March 31, 2023, We present our mock trial with a legitimate judge, court reporter, and even a jury of our peer, which consists of teachers and students!
The opening statement read, On March 29, the police department received suicide call of Rachael. When the police arrived to the scene, Rachael was found on the floor with gunshot wound to the head, and her husband, Paul Nease fled the scene with bloody rag. The prosecution is seeking a guilty verdict of murder in the first degree.
The opening statement of the defense, a man, Paul Nease's life on line and there is no evidence indicating fingerprints. Mr. Nease had not run from questions but in fact just fled a sad scene. The defense is seeking justice for an innocent man in the suicide of his wife.
The first witness called is the first responding officer. When he arrived at the scene at 9:30, he saw a single body lying dead, with Paul Nease holding a bloody rag, he then ran out house and away from the scene. The defense then began to cross examine the witness, and ultimately gained no new information.
The next witness, medical examiner, Dr. Glenn Garside had determined the cause of death as a single gunshot wound to head, and the manner of death at this point is undetermined, with the crime occurring at approximately between 8:30-9:30 am. In the cross examination of the defense, toxicology of the victim was brought up, and anti depressant medication was only found in her system at a therapeutic level.
A police officer on scene, is called as the next witness. When he arrived on the scene, Mr. Caver, the officer, was shown pictures of the scene, but these were quickly stricken from the record due to the inconsistency of evidence between the prosecution and defense.
Diane McCleery, is called upon as the 911 operator. The call is played, and when asked to stay on the line, Mr. Nease did not oblige and immediately hung up. Her cross examination consists of questions of the defendants mannerisms on the phone, which she agreed were abnormal.
Jane Smith, Paul Nease's sister in law, as well as Rachael's sister, is now called to the stand. Her relationship, especially her sexual relationship with Paul is being questioned. During her cross examination, she reads aloud messages, and still does not admit nor allude to any inappropriate relationship with Paul Nease.
The last witness called, is Laura Grantham, a police sergeant and digital examiner. She was provided the phones of both spouses, as well as the computer found near the crime scene. She however, could not get information from the computer due to a bit locker program, which disguises data and cannot be undone without being open by the user who placed it,, the purpose is to lock data for privacy. When she searched the victims phone, she found an incriminating article against her husband, which she believed he was targeting to kill her, that was downloaded 3-4 days before the crime. When she searched the defendants phone, he had a history of texting both his wife as well as his sister in law. Also found, was a search for a revolver for sale online. During her cross examination, she is asked to recognize messages she had seen, which would possibly come into play later.
Paul Nease, the defendant, is now called to testify. If a defendant so chooses to testify, they meet the judge outside of the jury, and must answer every question asked of them. Mr. Nease restates his alibi, leaving for work when he found his wife, dead on the ground with a gunshot wound to the temple. He claims to have left the scene to go to a quiet place away from the chaos, and was not asked any further questions. When cross examined by the prosecution, they question him about the bloody rag and tampering with evidence, as well as his relationship with his sister in law, he expressed there was no inappropriate relationship going on.
The closing argument of the prosecution, proclaims that Nease lied about his contact with the weapon, due to evidence of bloody fingerprints in his name, and Rachael Nease, was murdered by her husband, Paul, after suspicion.
The defense closing argument, pleads to the jury that we have already lost one life, and there is no need for another innocent life to be lost as well. He did what he was told and then left the scene, when he could've stayed if he was asked.
The jury deliberates, and a foreperson chosen by the jury, would sign the verdict form. The verdict must be unanimous by the jury beyond reasonable doubt, as well as abide by the elements of murder, The victim must be proven to be dead, the defendant must have caused the death, and intention of premeditation needs be proven.
When the jury returned, they name the defendant in the State of Alabama vs. Paul Nease, not guilty of murder in the first degree and free to go. This case is roughly based on a case Mr. Garside has covered in his lifetime, In the true case, the defendant was not guilty of the murder of his wife and the victim did truly commit suicide. The officers in the true case did in-fact leave him at the scene where he fled with the rag.
The mistakes we made as we investigated the case were that we let him get away with the rag, which was key evidence, and we did not check the shell casing in the gun for fingerprints. If printed, the shell casings would have shown Rachael to have been the person to have shot the gun, not Paul, and would have truly solidified our case.
This mock trial was a great experience for us to see how not only a trial works, but the medical sciences that play a part in the conviction in a court of law!
Comments