Closing statements of the Defense
Your Honor,
The Defense is not asking the Court to approve of what happened. It's asking the Court to see this case for what it really is: Not some high-rank experienced criminal involved in an organization, but a 67 years old man who was under extreme family and financial pressure that led to a lapse in judgment. This case involves a petty misdemeanor possession charge, and the Prosecution's own evidence is also narrow: No additional contraband or other items were found on Mister Vottega's, and also the confession was obtained solely for possession. The Prosecution's rhetoric is quite in conflict with this fact: They have alluded and built this case as if Mister Vottega was a drug trafficker, while pushing for a single charge of possession, which should at the very least bring reasonable doubt to mind.
We've also heard about why this happened. Mister Vottega's wife is suffering from leukemia, a life-threatening disease, and the evidence showed that he was solely seeking money in a state of desperation to try to save her. Aaron Johnson, the witness, testified that Mister Vottega approached him for help and that this was the act of a man who was cornered, not a career criminal.
This matters even more when the Court takes the time to look at the Defendant: Mister Vottega has a clean criminal record and 67 years old. He's not young and doesn't have neither the time nor an opportunity to start over his life. If Mister Vottega is convicted, he would not only be punished on paper, but it would also lead to his bar license being removed and a dismissal from his security guard job, which as the Court can imagine will just push Mister Vottega deeper into poverty and in a more dangerous position than before. Finding new employment at 67 years old is not a "maybe", it's impossible.
The Court should also look at how the confession was obtained. During the interrogation, Mister Vottega became visibly emotional and burst into tears over fear that signing would cost him his license. Officer Hobbs then told him that he would lose his license anyway and asked him again if he wished to sign. From a reasonable person standpoint, this does /not/ sound like a confession obtained from a person who was calm, voluntary and reliable. It is a picture of a 67 years old man in tears, under extreme distress.
So, even if the Court looks at this from a technical standpoint and believes a violation occurred, I humbly ask the Court to also look at the full human picture of the consequences for Mister Vottega. The purpose of justice is not to destroy a man's life where mercy can still serve it better. Mister Vottega is /not/ a continuing threat, a career criminal or remotely involved in a criminal organization, he's an elder, first-time offender who made one shameful and desperate choice during a family crisis.
For all of these reasons, the Defense asks this Court to exercise mercy and avoid any outcome that would permanently ruin Mister Vottega's ability to work and care for his wife, by returning a verdict of
NOT GUILTY.
Respectfully submitted,
Attorney-at-Law
