The Trial of Harold Horseface: Day 9

Today the jury heard the closing statements from Mr. Mooser and Mr. Bronstein. Mooser began his statement with an open-ended question: 

Mooser: Members of the jury, I would like to invite you to ponder a question with me: Who is Harold Horseface? What do we know about the man seated here today? I think the best way to learn about a man is through his actions. And Mr. Horseface’s actions are a veritable textbook. 

Mooser started by summarizing the events mentioned in Ethel’s testimony, portraying Harold as an erratic and bizarre person. Bronstein took particular offence to Mooser’s comments on the dodecahedron incident: 

Mooser: We have heard multiple examples of Mr. Horseface’s penchant for nonsensical stories. Take, for instance, his tale about the catfish. Mr. Horseface claimed they were hitchhiking to Burlington, but as we all know, fish can’t hitchhike. They have no thumbs to stick out. Likewise, his story about meeting the Platonic solids in Bosnia is completely divorced from reality. It is clearly an attempt to hand-wave his attempt to demolish his house in the name of an obscure and pointless geometric concept. 

Bronstein: Objection! Heresy! 

Westinghouse: Do you mean hearsay? 

Bronstein: No, I mean heresy! He’s blaspheming against the Platonic solids! 

Westinghouse: Blasphemy hasn’t been illegal in this state for quite some time, Mr. Bronstein. Your objection is overruled. 

Mooser: But above all, what the events of January 7th demonstrate is that Mr. Horseface is someone who is willing to put others in harm’s way in order to achieve his irrational goals. 

Mooser’s argument in favor of the assault charge was surprisingly short on details. He seemed to dance around the issue of how exactly Officer Polmer was injured, focusing instead on Harold’s involvement in the incident: 

Mooser: It is undeniable that Officer Polmer was injured by the defendant’s serpent. It is also undeniable that had the defendant not been marching through town, Polmer would not have been injured at all. Mr. Horseface moved his serpent in such a way that Officer Polmer had to fall on it. His actions during the altercation directly resulted in Polmer’s injury and therefore warrant the charge of aggravated assault. 

Mooser was more forceful and detailed in his argument that Harold’s Christmas march constituted disorderly conduct: 

Mooser: You have heard about the numerous car accidents caused by the defendant’s march. You have also heard how the defendant disregarded them entirely and continued onward. You have heard the defendant’s claim that he had a permit for this march, despite there being no record of its existence. And you have heard how the defendant disobeyed Officer Polmer’s direct order to cease the march and restore peace to our streets. Maybe it’s just me, but this does not strike me as being a cheerful holiday event. No, it is something far more sinister. 

And Mr. Horseface himself has given no clear answer as to what the purpose of the march was. Was it a Christmas march? The majority of Vermonters celebrate Christmas Eve on December 24th. Why have a Christmas march when no one is expecting it? This claim seems even more unlikely when the questionable setlist performed by the Upper Valley Swan Choir is taken into account. 

Was it a demonstration of solidarity with the Macedonian people? Mr. Horseface clearly is passionate about this cause, but the march was still Christmasy enough to make this implausible. 

Was it a mob, hellbent on destroying the tranquility of a January night? I cannot say. But regardless of the rationale behind it, it undeniably brought chaos to White River Junction, and it undeniably warrants the charge of disorderly conduct. 

Mooser finished his statement by returning to his question from the beginning: 

Mooser: We may never know who Mr. Horseface really is, but I can tell you what he is: guilty. 

It was now time for Bronstein’s closing statement. He began by addressing the prosecution’s attempts to question Harold’s character: 

Bronstein: Mr. Mooser claims that Harold Horseface is a dangerous and irrational person. Well, Mr. Mooser also thinks it’s impossible for a fish to hitchhike, but how else are they supposed to get over the Green Mountains? 

The jury chuckled at Mooser’s failure to realize this obvious fact. 

Bronstein: My client is passionate about his interests, passionate about his career as a serpenter, passionate about this town. He proudly reaches out his hand to the man in the street and the fish in the duffel bag. Sure, Harold may have tried to knock down his house with a sledgehammer, but I ask you, what is more important: walls, or the Platonic solids? You may think the answer is obvious, but if you look inside yourself, you’ll discover it’s a little more complicated. 

Bronstein’s argument against the disorderly conduct charge was broad but managed to rebuke many of the specific points brought up by Mooser: 

Bronstein: We have documents and witness testimony showing the attention to detail with which this event was planned. A setlist, a thoroughly calculated map, a diagram showing twenty-three people marching in formation! How can something this well thought-out be disorderly? The answer is simple – it cannot. 

Much discussion has been made about whether or not this year’s date change made the march more disorderly. In fact, the Christmas march has a history of date flexibility; after all, no march was held in 2020. As to the claim that Harold did not have a permit, the burden of proof was on the state, and they failed to come up with anything. 

The prosecution has also tried to use the number of car accidents on the evening of January 7th as evidence that Harold’s march was disorderly. But is it Harold’s fault that these drivers weren’t at a safe following distance? Of course not. If you rear-end someone, you alone are responsible. Not the person you ran into, and certainly not the man leading merry carolers down the street like the Pied Piper. 

Where Bronstein really shone, however, was in his argument against the aggravated assault charge. He displayed a tremendous command of rhetoric that will surely place him with Clarence Darrow and Johnnie Cochran as one of the greatest defense attorneys in the history of this country: 

Bronstein: The prosecution has provided you with three witnesses to the altercation with Officer Polmer. There is Mr. Baffin, who testified that he did not see Harold use his serpent in any violent way; rather, he merely raised it up. There is Officer Nicklaus, who showed up on the scene after the injury occurred and jumped to conclusions as to what happened. And there is the victim himself, who due to the nature of his injuries can only partially remember the events of that evening. Unfortunately for the prosecution, their first witness has disproved the claim that Harold violently attacked Officer Polmer, while the other two, despite their status as police officers, are unreliable. 

By contrast, the eyewitnesses we called to the stand had up-close views of the altercation. Even if you are suspicious of Harold’s account, as you have every right to be, the testimonies of Mr. Chernyshevsky and Professor Belfast prove that Harold did not intentionally hit Officer Polmer with his serpent. 

Perhaps this lack of reliable witnesses is why Mr. Mooser lacks a consistent explanation for how Harold attacked the good officer. As you recall, he initially did not believe that Officer Polmer tripped over a pothole; he didn’t even believe the pothole existed. Now that multiple witnesses, including the very person who cut the pothole, have testified to its existence, Mr. Mooser’s story has changed. Now his story is that Harold intentionally moved his serpent in such a way that Officer Polmer would hit his head on it as he fell. This is simply ridiculous. 

Members of the jury, I’d like you to put yourselves in Harold’s shoes. I am sure all of you have possessions that you hold dear, possessions that are not only vital to your career but also represent significant investments of time, money, and emotion. Now ask yourself: how would you react if someone tried to take them from you? Would you passively give them up, or would you hold them close to you? Harold’s movement of his serpent was an impulsive act that came from a desire to prevent his livelihood from being taken away from him. It was pure coincidence that that movement put his serpent in the path of Officer Polmer’s head. Harold could not have foreseen this, and he had absolutely no intention of hurting anyone with his march. And remember, Harold immediately tried to help the officer up once he realized what had happened. 

This was no assault. This, my dear jurors, was a tragic accident. 

Perhaps stunned by Bronstein’s statement, Mooser declined to give a rebuttal. 

After the closing statements were completed, Judge Westinghouse gave the jury their instructions, and they left to begin deliberation. 

The final update will be posted once the verdict is in. 

Today's sketch: