Clarke Case Closing Statement

To the members of the jury, today we have been brought a case in which Jamie
Clarke is being convicted of a crime in which there is obvious doubt as to his
responsibility in this crash. We as the defense counsel today have proven to you
that all the evidence against Jamie is flimsy and leads to only more questions. What
this case all boils down to is an act of utter betrayal by Mr. Clarkes girlfriend and
best friend. Cora-Lee Moore and Kristoph Hawkley broke the law and killed two
innocent bystanders. In an effort to protect themselves, they have pointed the
finger at Mr. Clarke. Mr Clarke has provided testimony as to his actions and
whereabouts during the night of October 11 th and the morning of October 12th.
Ladies and gentlemen, he was nowhere near the site of the crash when it
happened. In fact, he was at home, on his bed. The actions and flirtatious
exchanges between Ms Moore and Mr Hawkley caused Mr Clarke to go home early.
Ms Block has stated that she personally saw Mr Clarke leave the McDonalds
restaurant before Mr Hawkley or Ms Moore. Only Ms Moore and Mr Hawkley have
been able to assert that they saw Mr. Clarke at the scene of the accident. No other
witnesses have been able to give a definite confirmation to Mr. Clarkes presence at
the scene. Why? Because he wasnt at the scene of the crash, only Mr Hawkley and
Ms Moore were. The only hard evidence presented by the crown today has been a
fingerprint on the steering wheel of the Ford Explorer. Yet, Jamie was present in that
car until he left the MdDonalds in the early morning. The fingerprint could have
been left at any time during the night; the crown never provided any proof that Mr
Hawkleys or Ms Moores fingerprints were not present on the wheel. Ladies and
gentlemen of the jury I remind you, Mr Clarke cannot be convicted based purely on
circumstantial evidence, and in fact all other evidence presented by the crown could
apply to Mr Hawkley just as easily as it applies to Mr Clarke. The crown will argue
that eye witnesses have testified Mr Clarke broke the branch and stated what he
planned to do. They will say that two other witnessed provided testimony to Mr
Clarkes presence at the scene. These two witnesses have no reason to lie, true.
However, we remind the jury that only Mr Hawkley and Ms Moore are the only ones
able to provide any certain evidence. To take a look at what this case has really
come down to is the word of one side against the other side. The word of one
innocent Mr Clarke and the words of Mr Hawkley and Ms Moore, both of whom have
legitimate reason to try and frame Mr Clarke. Ms Moores and Mr Clarkes
relationship had been rocky at best, Ms Moore herself admitted to them having
arguments, and according to Mr Clarke her and Mr Hawkley had been acting much
closer than usual. Mr Hawkley on the other hand, has a criminal record in
accordance to theft, Mr Clarke doesnt. Mr Hawkley states that Mr Clarke also broke
into cars, yet we see no proof of this from the crown. Mr Hawkley reported Mr Clarke
not because Mr Clarke did it. It was because he needed someone to take the fall for
him. Mr Hawkley states he had no idea what the consequences of the crash were,
and neither did Ms Moore. They both say they felt intense guilt after seeing the
news reported; this guilt was what Mr Hawkley said eventually led to him calling the

police. This guilt was there only because Mr Hawkley and Ms Moore knew they were
directly implicated. And Mr Hawkley knew that if he didnt call the police, Mr Clarke
would eventually put the pieces together and know what had happened. Mr Clarke
never even heard of the news, he didnt even watch TV; because he never even
knew the crash ocurred. Mr Hawkley and Ms Moore watched the news because they
did. And they needed to know what had happened as a result of their actions.
Members of the jury, this isnt a tough decision, the crown has failed to present any
viable evidence against Mr Clarke. Not only is there reasonable doubt as to his
involvement, there is now reasonable certainty of his innocence. If all the
circumstantial evidence is take off the table, we are left with a clash in the stories of
Mr Clarke and Mr Hawkley and Ms Moore. The difference between the parties is the
obvious presence of guilty conscience from both Mr Hawkley and Ms Moore. While
devastated by what has transpired as a result of his friends actions, Mr Clarke is
only standing before the jury today because of the people he chose to surround
himself with. Jamie Clarke is innocent and was uninvolved in the deaths of Nick and
Polly Smith. The defense rests its case.