The Smart Trial Debate Judge Glassford sits at the head of the classroom as students take each other on in a debate that questions the innocence or guilt of Pamela Smart in the conspiracy to murder her husband Gregory Smart. The students in the English 151-38 class had been divided into two groups: Prosecution (Affirmative of Pamela Smart’s guilt) vs. Defense (Negative- Pamela Smart is innocent), prior to this eventful day. During the debate, both sides provided valid evidence for their arguments on the Smart Trial. Being on the Defense side allows me to provide an account of the events that occurred during this student-debate and also a reflection on how effectively my team members debated Pamela Smart’s innocence. First and foremost, the
…show more content…
Olivia Bruno’s tone as she read the opening statement set the mood that this debate was well-planned out and would be intriguing. The opening statement clearly stated the factual evidence: Billy Flynn and Patrick Randall had killed Gregory Smart on May 1, 1990 after ransacking the apartment to make it seem as if it had been a burglary and also that Billy Flynn and Pamela Smart had an affair. It pointed out that this is the evidence people know to be accurate and then explained that the evidence used to convict Pamela Smart of the crime was inconclusive. Based on the edited audio tapes provided by a fifteen year old Cecilia Pierce and the testimonies of two boys housed in the same cell together, the evidence convicting Pamela Smart of conspiracy to kill her husband had been falsified. Olivia was able to explain how the actual facts and the falsified evidence got mixed up in the court case and lead to a false accusation of Pamela Smart who should be innocent until proven guilty by valid …show more content…
The other group members could provide resources that might be needed and the people who did not take active roles could come up with ideas by using these resources. Likewise, there could be more time provided for the debate to allow room for discussion of topics relevant to the trial that may have affected the verdict such as whether Pamela Smart’s medication for her bipolar disorder and Flynn’s taking cocaine might have affected their testimony. These changes would provide more perspectives on the trial since there is more input from people and other sources. All in all, the Defense team was effective in their argument for Pamela Smart’s innocence and everyone on the team played integral roles in making the debate a
Olivia Bruno’s tone as she read the opening statement set the mood that this debate was well-planned out and would be intriguing. The opening statement clearly stated the factual evidence: Billy Flynn and Patrick Randall had killed Gregory Smart on May 1, 1990 after ransacking the apartment to make it seem as if it had been a burglary and also that Billy Flynn and Pamela Smart had an affair. It pointed out that this is the evidence people know to be accurate and then explained that the evidence used to convict Pamela Smart of the crime was inconclusive. Based on the edited audio tapes provided by a fifteen year old Cecilia Pierce and the testimonies of two boys housed in the same cell together, the evidence convicting Pamela Smart of conspiracy to kill her husband had been falsified. Olivia was able to explain how the actual facts and the falsified evidence got mixed up in the court case and lead to a false accusation of Pamela Smart who should be innocent until proven guilty by valid …show more content…
The other group members could provide resources that might be needed and the people who did not take active roles could come up with ideas by using these resources. Likewise, there could be more time provided for the debate to allow room for discussion of topics relevant to the trial that may have affected the verdict such as whether Pamela Smart’s medication for her bipolar disorder and Flynn’s taking cocaine might have affected their testimony. These changes would provide more perspectives on the trial since there is more input from people and other sources. All in all, the Defense team was effective in their argument for Pamela Smart’s innocence and everyone on the team played integral roles in making the debate a