What I've Learned About Life

ILLINOIS: PEOPLE V FOREMAN APPEAL

PROSECUTION

CASE A TWO

Trial Memorandum for the Defendant

Prior to sentencing, Defendant Mr. Marcus Foreman submitted post-trial motions to the court stating that his determined- sentence should be overturned. Such allegations are due to improper and inappropriate remarks made by prosecution during closing arguments. Such includes:

"This court would not intentionally waste your time trying an innocent man."

"Don't let any evidence of Ronald Silverman's bullying lead you to give Mr.Foreman a pass in this tragedy."

"With his history, it was only a matter of time before Marcus Foreman did something like this."

"Most people accused of crimes are convicted. That is because, most, if not all, of them are guilty."

The court denied the motions, leaving the defendant Marcus Foreman filing a timely appeal, arguing that his right to a fair trial had been violated. Marcus Foreman was originally found guilty of assault. His original plea for base on self-defense.

1. Evidence vs. Assumption

In People V. Bianchi (96 III. App.3d 113, 51 III. Dec. 629, 420 N.E. 2d 1187 (1981)), the Appellate Court, Barry, J., held that the defendant was not prejudiced by remarks of prosecutor that witnesses who admitted heroin addiction committed crimes to support their habits. The statement affirmed by the prosecutor is undeniably held at a fair consistency and is not prejudice based on the fact that this is a proven assumption found in many research magazines. The prosecutor in People V. Foreman was making false accusations that Marcus Foreman was guilty even prior to being sentenced. Although instructions given to the jury after closing arguments was to disregard any comments, evidence, and information that had been objected to and sustain, remarks made by the prosecutor can still alleviate bias opinions and thus drastically alter the decision of the case at bar. In People V. Bianchi, "there was direct evidence that both defendant and one other witness sold heroin and fact that two other witnesses dealt in narcotics trade to support their habits could be reasonably inferred from their testimony." In People V Foreman, again, there was still no direct evidence that Foreman was guilty for murder. However, the prosecutor of People vs. Foreman held the notion that Foreman should be assumed to be guilty. According to People V. Bianchi, "a prosecutor may properly comment unfavorably on the defendant and the violence of the crime, when supported by the evidence, and speak of evil results of crime and the benefits of a fearless administration of law." There was still not enough evidence to deem or assume Foreman committed the death of Silverman out of anything but self-defense.

According to People V. Bianchi, "When evidence adduced is so overwhelming that a conviction would, of necessity, result even if the error were eliminated, a court of review will not reverse the trial court's judgment." In Mr. Foreman's defense, this is not the case to be evaluated. Evidence was not overwhelming. In fact, there were many reasons to believe of the skepticism evolving from the trial facts. For example, many witnesses like Rodney Beck agrees that because of the light and distance, he wasn't sure how far apart they were. He claims it didn't seem very far. This is enough to prove the evidence was flawed in some sort of degree. There was no real way to tell if Silverman was trying to physically hurt or Foreman. Hence, the prosecutor's claims and statements should have been eliminated or reversed.

2. Eyewitness Testimony sufficient to support verdict

In People of Illinois V. Faysom (131 III. App.3d 517, 86 III. Dec. 566, 475 N.E.2d 945 (1985)) the Appellate Court, Hartman J., held that "although certain remarks made by prosecutor were improper, defendant was not thereby deprived of a fair trial since, in view of compelling evidence of guilt remarks could not have been material factor in his conviction nor would verdict have been different in their absence" and "admission of pistol and testimony was harmless where key evidence was eyewitness testimony which itself would have been sufficient