Carl Gallagher's Defense For Twelve Angry Men

Defense for twelve angry men - Ladder
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defense, a 19 year old boy Carl Gallagher is being wrongly accused for the homicide of his father. After hearing the prosecution's statement your mind can be persuaded as to why Carl could be guilty, but he is not guilty. The evidence shown by the prosecution is not a substantial foundation for the whole case to set it self upon. Think of a man who would kill his own father. Now does that man fit the representation and story of the young man Carl? For me certainly not. See through the empty spaces and realize those spaces are necessary for the proper functioning of a young adult.
Carl Gallagher has lived a rigorous life. With his mom not being in the picture most of his life and his dad not being the best spotter for him, a young boy can only be expected to be accused of this crime. But should his backround be held straight against him, or should it be used to support him. Being born into the slums helps you have tough skin as you grow up. You have to learn to protect yourself from the crime filled streets. Carl chose to teach himself to fight with knives. Since going to reform school when he was 15, Carl

has kept a hold of his knife skills, but has chosen to not indulge in violence involving knives. With such skills learned in 4 years an experienced person should not make a downwards stab angle. A smart boy like him couldn't have made such a rookie mistake.
When solving a crime the first steps that are most vital are finding the weapon and the owner.

On the night of the crime Carl bought a knife , keep in mind he has been exposed to knifes for years now. The store worker who sold Carl the knife said it was very unique which can intrigue a frequent knife user, but was the employee just trying to make another sale? Carl, not noticing, bought the knife but later lost it when it fell out of his pocket. The knife was later found at the crime scene with no fingerprints matching his. Since this case began, a private investigation went on and it was proved there were similar knives at the same place he had originally bought the knife from. This evidence points in the right direction as to why the knife found at the crime scene could not be

his.
Eyewitness, Amy Fielder, testified that she saw Carl Stab his father through her apartment window across the el tracks at 12:10 at night. Amy is known to wear glasses so she can see clearly. Could she see clearly that it was Carl or could it have been an unknown figure? People are not likely to go to sleep with their glasses on. If Amy were to look up at the exact moment she could not have possibly been able to see the boy clearly enough. If his face is not distinctly shown then his evidence is not sturdy enough for the boy to be guilty.
For a defendant to be proven guilty there must be correctly angled evidence to assure that one is guilty, but in this case the evidence is weak and unaccounted for. This young man's life is being balanced between skeptical evidence and pivotal use of sense. Don't let a boy at such a low rung in his life end up falling to his death.