Arguments: Rebutting a good argument
Previously in Trials and Tribulations, we saw a lawyer make an effective nullification argument to absolve his clients – soldiers from the Australian army in the Boer War who executed unarmed prisoners of war and a missionary – of murder charges.
He pointed to the unfairness of asking men to kill the enemy, complaining about how prisoners of war slowed down logistics chains, and then putting them on trial for murder after the prisoners they were guarding were responsible for the sadistic killing of their friends and comrades.
Today, Captain Aubrey Daniel decisively rebuts that very defense with devastating effectiveness. CPT Daniel was a prosecutor for the famous Vietnam-era My Lai Massacre trial of American soldiers who killed unarmed men, women, and children in a Vietnamese village.
He faced almost the exact defense given by the defense lawyer in the Breaker Morant clip I posted on the last T&T.
I’m posting the link to the entire rebuttal argument here (sorry; I have no video clip of it).
https://famous-trials.com/mylaicourts/1609-rebuttal
Here are especially effective excerpts demonstrating an important skill I like to call, “play the course, not your opponent.” Return the jury’s attention to YOUR theme rather than focusing on the opponent. And hammer it home relentlessly using the techniques I’ve described in previous posts.
“He has attempted to absolve himself of responsibility by saying that he had his duty there, that he acted in the name of this country ... and I submit to you ... that he did not and there can be no doubt upon that question.
To make that assertion is to prostitute all of the humanitarian principles for which this nation stands ... [and] the true mission of the United States soldier. It has been said that the soldier, be he friendly or foe, is charged with the protection of the weak and unarmed. It is the very essence and reason for his being.
When he violates this sacred trust, he not only profanes his entire cult but threatens the very fabric of international society.
Within our society and under the law, the value placed on human life is sacred. When the accused put on the uniform of an American soldier and took the oath of allegiance to this country, ... [h]e was not relieved of his responsibility ... to know that he should not shoot an unarmed and innocent child or a baby.
The accused, when he took the oath of an American officer, was not given a license to slaughter unarmed men, women, and children on his own personal supposition that they were the enemy. Such acts are not now nor have they ever been justified under the law of this country.”
BANG. Brilliant. Powerful. Decisive rebuttal. It chokes me up just reading it.
Pics of CPT Daniel then and in 2018.
If you think this kind of information is valuable and would like more details on training for your firm/organization, contact us.
