Jury clears our client after 30 minutes of deliberation

A jury acquitted our client today after a quick trial. We argued that the complaining witness was not credible, highlighted the inconsistencies in their story, and pointed out their possible reasons for making up the allegations. Most of the strategy was to present as much of the evidence as we could and to let the complainant keep talking, because the evidence was better for us than for the prosecutor (probably because our client didn’t do what he was accused of doing). There really were a lot of problems with the allegations, like some very commonsense issues about lack of injuries and other evidence. Some of it also had to do with a myopic investigation, as we easily pointed out that the investigating officer failed to document a lot of things people in the jury box would want to know. As much as we’d like to take all of the credit for the win, this case really boiled down to something the prosecutor shouldn’t have prosecuted. It’s a shame that our client had to go through this and that it took six months to get to trial, but the client should be proud that he stood his ground and made the prosecutor do the work. A lesson for would-be prosecutors: if the defense attorney wants to present more of your evidence than you do, you probably made a bad charging decision and should revaluate your intake process.