Back to the real world, or so it is as I perceive it . . . .

I have been going over a mock trial packet that I have to put on on Monday. I am trying to establish a reason for why my client, the defendant, did what he did in the moments following the incident (that was an accident)in question. Now, some would say that his choice of actions were odd, even damning. For example, why didn't he call his wife, but instead he called his friend from high school? Why did he not dial 911?

Maybe he panicked. Maybe the thoughts going through his head were not at all rational because he found himself in a situation that was not rational. How does a person wrap his mind around a situation that makes absolutely no sense, and then determine how to act rationally? And certainly, how would one do this when there is a dead infant in front of him?

Or maybe the answer is easier than that. Every person I know acts irrationally at some point. Even when entirely calm. I know people who drive almost up to their destination and then turn left, and take a longer route. If you can see your destination and it is through the four-way stop and on the right, why make a left hand turn? How difficult is a four-way stop? Why do you want to avoid that section of road? Or is there a house that you like that you can only view if you take this detour? Is there a pothole that you got used to avoiding in the four-way stop, that even now that it is filled, you still find yourself avoiding?


I even manage to find myself making phone calls to deliver important information to family members, and then talking about everything but the topic that inspired my call. I get a lot of this, too: I end a conversation with my parents. The very next phone call is from my youngest little sister, who does not live at home. The first words out of her mouth are, "So, did you hear about dad's wreck yesterday?" Huh? I called my parents back to ask how my dad and the truck were in the aftermath of this accident, and we ended up discussing my grandmother's upcoming birthday instead. I still have not talked to my parents at all about this car accident.

So how am I supposed to try to explain the actions of this defendant in this particular situation on this particular day? I cannot. I am going to ask the jury members how often they have made odd decisions, and have acted in an unexplainable and illogical manner. I am going to ask them why they did these things. Then I am going to ask them if they were less likely to do stupid things when under stress. And then I am going to ask them if making a bad decision after a tragedy meant that they had caused that tragedy. I cannot offer explanations for the bonehead things that I do, much less explain how a fictional defendant reacted in a high-stress situation. I am then going to explain that the jury cannot find a man guilty of murder for not remembering the number for 911 when he is panicking, or for wanting somebody else to be there to help through a tough time.

It scares me to think that many prosecutors in this set of mock trials will argue that the defendant is guilty because he did not make the most rational of decisions. Even under the best of circumstances, most of us do not function under pure logic. Does that mean that we are guilty of crimes?

Wel, maybe . . . .