Government's Case

After opening statements, the Government begins presenting its case through its witnesses. During a government witness's testimony we play a defensive game, making objections as needed to keep the witness from testifying about matters that are improper (for example, a witness's testimony about what someone else told him is generally "hearsay," and inadmissible).

After each witness has testified, we have an opportunity to cross-examine him and tell part of our story through him. That might mean getting him to agree to facts that he didn't testify about, and it might mean casting doubt on the things that he did testify about. Cross-examination is both an art and a science. It requires extensive preparation, encyclopedic knowledge of the facts of the case, a deep understanding of human nature, and a sharpened instinct for what the witness may be induced to say.

After the government has presented its case and rested, we ordinarily ask the judge, out of the presence of the jury, for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the government has not proven everything it has to prove (the "elements" of the offense) beyond a reasonable doubt to any jury. Judgments of acquittal are rarely granted -- even if the judge agrees that the evidence is marginal, she will usually let the jury decide -- but there is rarely a downside to asking for it.