Here we are confronted with a capital murder trial, one in which prospects for the Defendant do not look very promising. The Defendant, our client, is accused of shooting the deceased in the Mall parking lot one sunny afternoon, at very close range and in the head, with a .357 Magnum revolver. Most, if not all, the factual evidence seems clearly against our client, including the testimony of an alleged eye-witness to the murder, a Ms. Smith, by name. Among other maneuvers to counter such evidence overall, we intend to discredit Ms. Smith's character by asking her, under oath, if it is or is not true that she is a prostitute and a dealer in illegal drugs. Our aim here is to play upon the egotistical conscience of a certain juror, a Mr. Jones, by name, hoping he will vote not guilty in this case because he fundamentally wishes to avoid the embarrassment of having to admit to his wife, his children, his business associates, and his religious colleagues that he, in practical effect, voted, in this case, to execute our client based on the testimony of a morally corrupt and debased witness. Think here as would a Judge, in such an instance.
Then, in no more space than your last page, discuss the personal and social responsibility issues in this trial as if you were a Juror in this trial. Thus, given what you, personally, as a juror, know about the evidence involved, would you individually feel compelled to vote for conviction or acquittal? And at the larger level of social responsibility, as a member of the Jury/Public, and, again, using the information made available in this trial, should society at large approve of a conviction, leading certainly to capital punishment in this case, or allow an acquittal, certainly saving the accused's life?