Here are some articles about the case. I've specifically chosen ones that do not discuss the trial itself or outcome (you can look that up later!). For this assignment, read the information and then make some decisions about how you will develop the case.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/30/national/main658296.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chai_Vang (only if you have enough self control not to read the trial and verdict sections!)
http://graphics2.jsonline.com/graphics/news/img/nov04/statement112304edits01.pdf
•Decide who you are: prosecution or defense
•What investigatory steps will you take next?•What information do you feel you need to continue developing your case?
•What type of character witnesses will you be looking for? What will you want them to testify about?
•What type of expert witness(es) will you want? Why?
•What will your slant on the evidence be?
And any other preparatory steps you'll. take prior to trial.
I would be the Prosecution. My investigatory steps would be to go to create an outline of the trial. For this I would go to the crime scene, look at any of the pictures that were taken of the crime scene in case anything has changed, go back through statements from Lauren Hesebeck and Terry Willers who were the two wounded victims, and the only two people besides Chai Vang to live. Then I would go back through the statement made by Chai Vang. Once all of the statements are collected I would get the statements of the police officers and people who were first hand responders. Once I had all of this evidence I would go back through my outline and revise it.
The information that I need to continue developing my case would be Chai Vang's background of hunting, how often he goes hunting, any safety training he has taken. I will also want all of the records of several calls about domestic violence because this shows that he does have a temper.
The type of character witnesses that I will be looking for are the two sole survivors of the attach and anyone who may have witnessed the shooting. I would want them to testify about what they saw. The two people who survived I would want them to testify about what they were doing before the shooting happened to what lead to the event of the shooting. if there is a witness who saw the shooting, but was not near the shooting, I would have them testify to what they heard and saw during the time of the shooting.
The type of expert witness I would want would be a firearms expert. I would want this to prove that the firearm did not "accidentally" go off and that the bullets that were used in the shooting matched Vang's firearm. I would also want to have a psychologist to be an expert witness. This would be to prove that what Vang did was not in self defense and was not a psychological break down. I would want to prove that he did purposefully shoot and kill the 6 innocent people on the private property that he was on.
My slant of the evidence will be the fact that Chai Vang was on private property when the shooting occurred, he has a history of a bad temper, and he shot all 8 people who were on that property. He was trying to kill all 8 of them, but did not succeed in doing so.
One more preparatory step that I would take prior to the trial is to look up any cases in the past that relates to this one case. If there is I would read what happened in the case and what the outcomes were. This could help strengthen my case before a jury if I stated what happened in a case previous to this one and would allow me to set the grounds for what the outcomes may be.
I will take on the role of the prosecution. First, I was start by making sure I have all the details available about the case. I would collect all photographs of the crime scene and gather all statements made by everyone involved in the case, especially the witnesses and suspect. I would then compile all of the information and find out what may be missing and try to find that information. After all information possible has been gathered, I would piece together everything and determine the weaknesses in my case and figured out ways to improve upon my arguments.
In order to continue my case, I would definitely look into Vang’s past. I would want to find out any past run ins with the law and his hunting history (especially the approximate amount of times he had hunted on that particular land to see if it was even probable that he didn’t know that the land was private). I would also want to check on possible follow up interviews with Vang and the witnesses to see if their stories have remained consisted with the initial statements and see if I can work through any holes in their stories that will make my case stronger.
I would question the witnesses and anybody who had contact with Vang prior to him leaving to go hunting to see if maybe anything prior to that would have irritated him or caused him to be angry, etc. to possibly strengthen the idea that it wasn’t self-defense and he was touch/vulnerable beforehand. I would want the witnesses to testify about what they had been doing up until the time of the crime. I would also question them about whether or not they had seen Vang hunting before on their property because if they had, it would indicted that Vang probably knew it was private property but neglected to stay off of it. I would question all other people who came into contact with Vang prior to him leaving to go hunting about their conversations with him and any past instances of violence they are aware of.
I would definitely want an expert on firearms on my side to that the bullets and the gun matched up. I would also want them to explain how the particular firearm that Vang had was used. I would also want a clinical psychologist to testify to counteract any possible insanity pleas that may come about.
My slant would be that it appeared that there was only 1 gun present in the group of 8 people, yet he attempted to kill all of them in “self-defense.” I also recall reading that he made a statement that someone was still alive, which indicates that he was looking for them, probably in hopes to leave no witnesses behind to pin him to the crime.
Before trial, I would make sure I have all the information needed that would help make my case as strong as possible, and of course, practice what I would say in hopes to catch any flaws in my arguments beforehand!
I decided to be the prosecution.
There are several necessary steps that I will take. First, I will need to make sure I have all the evidence linked to the case. This includes photographs, witness testimonies, defendant's testimony, and any other information involved with the case. After gathering this, I would interview the witnesses and the defendant again to hear it for myself. I would record all of these interviews. After these interviews, I might want to go back to the crime scene to try and piece the story together to see if it makes sense.
After doing these things, I would move on to find out more about the defendant, Vang. According to the article on cbsnews, Vang has had some previous run-ins with the law. I would look further in to his background to find out every instance he's had with police. I would use these to see if the story of the current incident makes sense. Some other information that's important is the laws surrounding private property. I would need to know exactly where the private property began that the incident happened at. The punishment for trespassing may have affected Vang's response.
The witnesses that are most important in this case are the two survivors. Because they were at the scene of the crime, they most likely have the most valid testimony. I would also want to talk to any of Vang's hunting buddies to see what kind of habits he has while hunting. I may also want to talk to Vang's wife since she had previous issues with Vang's criminal side. Some other people that may be important to talk to are the others that were at the cabin but not the crime scene. I would want to find out if the man who told Vang to leave initially is an aggressive person and would really do what Vang claimed he did - fire the first shot.
The type of expert witness I would have is gun expert to show that all the bullets found at the crime scene were from Vang's gun and that Vang was not shot at first.
My slant on the evidence will be that Vang was looking to kill based on the fact that he chased down two men and then moved around an object to shoot another man. If his motive was purely self defense, he would not have shot anyone else besides the first man who had his gun.
Prior to the trial, I would make sure I have everything organized so that I can do my job correctly to find Vang guilty of murder.
1)Porsecution or Defense?
I’ll try my hand at defending this guy.
2)What investigatory steps will you take?
Interviewing all the witnesses, organize the crime scene evidence. Find out why Vang confessed, possibly was treated poorly or unfairly and this forced him to incriminate himself. Discover why the others went out to help Willers since telling Vang to get off his property would have been enough. Find out where everyone’s guns were (more on this later). Find incriminating evidence for victmis and survivors in regards to jail time, tickets, fines, assaults, etc.
3)What information do you need to continue to develop your case?
I’ll be developing this case such that Vang was acting in self-defense after being frightened by the group of people, and that Vang was convinced that although most of these people were unarmed there were more on the way. In this case I’ll need evidence of racism or prejudice by the victims. It would be interesting to find out where everybody’s guns were. Supposedly only one victim had a gun but this seems bizarre. Perhaps others had guns but got rid of them or Vang forgot or didn’t notice them all. In this case anything out of the ordinary would be very beneficial since there are numerous eye-witnesses and a confession.
What was the weather like? Could anyone have missed important information? Was it loud and windy such that someone could have been making violent threats to Vang that others could not hear? Why would they surround Vang if they were genuinely trying to shoo him away? Especially if unarmed against an armed opponent? Was anyone drinking or doing drugs? Does anyone have any psychological problems or bizarre history? Where is the bullet casing of the one shot that was claimed to have been fired? How loud are the various rifles, and do they make similar sounds to one another? Could shots have been fired from another gun and be mistaken for Vang’s shots? Did any other hunters in the area hear or see anything?
4)What type of character witnesses are you looking for? What will you want them to testify about?
In large part this will be based on finding people who have known the victims for quite some time and will testify that they are racist or prejudiced and unpredictable or threatening. Background information on the victims to find out if they have a history of domestic violence, alcoholism, vandalism, or anything of this nature will at the very least lessen the impact of Vang’s domestic disputes. This will be very difficult I would imagine, so objective evidence of 911 calls, police reports, credit card reciepts indicating lots of beer sales, etc. would be key to getting a witness.
5)What type of expert witness(es) will you want? Why?
Expert witnesses on memory and eye witness testimony, possibly on why someone would give a false or incriminating confession. Someone familiar with the racial tensions in the surrounding areas. An expert on firearms perhaps to demonstrate that laymen could not differentiate the sound of the two weapons. An insanity plea doesn’t seem to be likely here but possibly his military background could be called up to demonstrate that he has emotional issues if no falsified or abnormal evidence turns up during the above mentioned investigation, sort of a last resort. Then a psychiatrist or military official may be brought in as an expert witness.
6)What will your slant on the evidence be?
As I mentioned above I’d attempt to demonstrate that the victims and witnesses were racist/prejudiced against Vang and also that they were threatening or provoking him. After provoking him by firing guns at him to scare him off and possibly to injure him they called for backup to continue their harassment. Depending on whether or not anyone was high, drinking or possibly drunk this would create more confusion and aid in this defense strategy. I would call into question the eye-witness and memory evidence as self-serving and invalid claiming that even if their memories were perfect the gun shots could not be distinguished so they really can’t say who shot first. Depending on the location of the other hunters and their guns I’d attempt to demonstrate that ATV’s could be heard all around such that Vang would have a reasonable belief that he was being attacked from all angles.
Depending on what the investigation turned up I would argue that Vang’s confession may have been caused by fear, sleep deprivation, or lack of food or water. Vang said he wanted a lawyer at 10:15 then 15 minutes later said he wanted to talk. This seems bizarre. Already however he’d have been in the jail for 12-15 hours since he had been picked up a few hours after the incident on the 21st. Vang could have thought that the whole sheriff’s dept was racist and thus that he would not be treated fairly, etc. etc. Either there is proof for this and you may be able to get evidence and the confession thrown out, or else it isn’t true and is instead simply a reasonable belief and thus evidence of why Vang may have left out key details making the victims appear less threatening than they really were towards him, including the presence of more guns that may or may not have been discarded, hidden, etc.
I decided to take the side of the prosecution.
I would begin by going to the crime scene to get an idea of what the layout was--heavily timbered, brush areas, hills, ditches, ravines, etc. I would check to see where the property line was that divided the private property from the public land, and see if there were adequate, if any, "NO TRESPASSING" signs posted. I would then acquire as many crime scene photographs and documents as I could. I would read the first responders' statements. I would then read the statements from the two wounded hunters, and interview them myself using the proper questioning techniques we learned in class. I would then read Mr. Vang's statement and contact the police that were involved in his previous run-in's with the law. I would also talk to his wife about her husband's aggressive tendencies and try to get some information about the domestic violence issues they have had in the past. I would talk to the DNR officer of that area if there had been any disputes between hunters in the past, especially between diverse ethnicities. I would then make my first draft of my outline.
I would then talk to friends and family members of Vang's to find out about his hunting history, like how long he has been hunting, if he normally hunts alone, if he follows hunting laws, if he's passed the Hunter's Safety Course, etc.
I would use the two wounded hunters as my character witnesses. I would also try to find any other hunters that were hunting on the public land that day to ask if they saw or heard anything; understanding of course that it being hunting season numerous gun shots were probably fired, but if any shots were fired one after another in a short amount of time. If Vang was hunting in a party that day, I would try to use the other members he was hunting with to testify about any peculiar behavior Vang exhibited before or after the shootings.
I would use a firearms expert and two psychologists or psychiatrists as my expert witnesses. The firearms expert would testify if the bullets at the scene were fired from Vang's gun, or if some of the bullets were fired from any of the dead or wounded hunters. The psychological experts would be used to refute an insanity plea by Vang, and to show that he had aggressive and violent tendencies-especially with guns.
My slant on the evidence would be the fact that there was only one gun, if the group of hunters that confronted Vang had been armed and firing at him how was it that all of them missed him but he killed most and wounded two of them. The fact that he chased after the two that he didn't kill and shot at them would also be brought up. I would also mention the legal definition of 'self-defense' and prove that being in the woods gave him numerous places he could've ran to and hid from the hunters that were supposedly attacking him.
I would make my final outline and run the case by other attorneys to see if they find any holes in my argument that the defense could find, and to see if they had any suggestions or found any areas that needed clarification.
First, I would make a rough outline of the whole case. I would start off by explaining the charges that are being made against Chai Vang and how he is pleading. Next, I would take note of the jury selection. The next part of my outline would be the most detailed. I would explain that Chai Vang open fired and murdered 6 and wounded 2 hunters. I would explain the possible motive behind this and ask for a harsh punishment. I would probably then explain some of the possible arguments that the defense might bring up (racial comments, mentally unstable, etc). I would present my final statements and then wait for the verdict.
After getting my outline situated, I would then get more information from the victims who are still alive. They were at the scene of the crime, and therefore have will have a better recollection of the crime scene than a police office would. I would take down statements from both of them. I would also get a statement from the paramedics and detectives that were on the scene. Finally, I would get the statement from Chai Vang and compare it to that of the other statements.
I would definitely call the two victims to the stand so the jury can get a first hand recollection from them. I would also call the primary detective to the stand and have him/her explain that the shootings were done in an aggressive and non-self-defense type of way. I would also probably call an expert witness in the field of aggression to the stand. It is obvious that Chai Vang has some aggression issues because of the two domestic violence issues that had happened in the previous year.
Finally, my slant evidence would be that Chai Vang had fired several times hitting some of the victims with multiple gun shots. This would prove that he was not using self-defense, but actually wanted these people to suffer and die. Also, if he was killing these people because of the “racist comments” then he would have only shot two of them, because not everyone made these comments.
Before the trial begins, I would make sure I have all my evidence and information in a neatly organized binder so that it will be easy to navigate to certain evidence that I need. I would also ask individuals who may not be involved in this case specifically to look over my finalized binder to see if they notice anything that could be fixed.
•Prosecution or defense?
Prosecution
•What investigatory steps will you take next?
First I would make sure I have all evidence necessary to make my case. Taking pictures where the crime happened would be an important step, as well as gathering anything left behind from either Vang or the other hunters. I would definitely interview the two survivors of the group, seperately, and see if they're stories match up. I would also interview Vang, just to see if his story sticks. Recording these interviews would be a good thing to do in case they needed to be presented in court for further evidence.
•What information do you feel you need to continue developing your case?
Because it stated in the CBS News article that he had a violet past, I would very much be interested in looking into this. It said he threatened his wife, so interviewing her and gathering information on his personality and behavior would be crucial evidence of his past. I would also asked Vang, if he really was defending himself in self defense like he claims, why didn't he only shoot once at the man with the gun? There was no need for him to actually go back and hunt these men down if his only purpose was self defense. This would be something to look into, and try to dig a deeper confession out of him, other than he just shot in self defense. It's funny how he admits to shooting and tracking down the other five guys, and yet he claims he was defending himself, something that doesn't seem right in this case. But definitely looking into his violent past and previous criminal records would really help out the prosecution here.
•What type of character witnesses will you be looking for? What will you want them to testify about?
Since he did threaten his wife, I would put her on the stand to testify about his past behavior. Also, I would bring the two survivors of the shooting to the stand, and ask for their testimony again as well. The wife would mainly testify about past behavior, and also her altrucation with him as well when he threatened her earlier. The two survivors will explain their story, and describe in detail what exactly happened. Other potential witnesses could be friends or people who know of Vang who know what his behavior is like, and have them testify on that as well, just as a back up to his wife's testimony.
•What type of expert witness(es) will you want? Why?
Definitely a gun expert would be brought in on this case, and possibly even an anger management therapist. The gun expert can trace the bullets found at the scene to who's gun they were fired from, either from Vang's or one of the hunters' gun. If no bullet was traced back to the hunters', Vang is lying in his statement that they fired at him first. For the anger management therapist, I would have him talk about agressive behavior, and what this can push people to do. Possibly even brining in a police officer who has dealt with Vang's behavior before would help asl well.
•What will your slant on the evidence be?
My slant evidence would be that if this was in self defense, what was the reason for him going back to find them to shoot them down? And what was the point in firing multiple shots when the man with the gun was already laying there dead? I would use phrases that he said, such as when he went back, he said "You're not dead yet?" to one of the hunters. Why would this matter if he already killed the person with the gun?
I would have detectives and other attorneys look over my work to make sure I'm making a valid argument and have enough evidence and support to convict this guy.
I would take the role of the prosecution. My first steps would be to get an initial outline going that I could later go back and revise after getting for details. I would collect photos from the scene and then go there for my self to check out the property, where the incident occurred, view the tree stand, and know where the property went from public to private. I would also be looking for a "private property" or "no trespassing" sign. My next step would be to view the statements of all those involved, the two living witnesses, the first police to arrive on scene, the police who interview Mr. Vang, and the coroner. After doing this I would want to interview all of these people myself, just to make sure all steps were taken and that their statements don't change and match up to the information I've been provided with. I would also want to speak with Mr. Chang's wife and the police officers involved in his previous case to point out that he has a previous record and is prone to violence. After doing all of this I would revise my original outline.
To continue on with my case I'd want to look at all of Vang's previous incidences with the law and get into detail of those. I'd also want to know his history with hunting: was he an avid hunter and what sort of history did he have with it. I would also take into serious account that Vang is an Army veteran, so he obviously knows how to handle weapons. I'd want to talk to his military base and anyone that was higher ranked that dealt with him to know if they ever had any issues with him or if he was more aggressive than most people.
Next up for my character witnesses, I'd want to use my two surviving victims. They could give a first hand account of the incident and explain not only what happened but how they were feeling. If I found out anything from his military background that I found would be helpful for the case I would also ask that they testify.
For my expert witnesses I'd want a firearms specialist to determine what fire arms the guns came from and how it would fit in against self defense. I'd also bring in a psychiatrist to rule out any sort of insanity plea, and that it was pure aggression.
For my slant evidence I would point out that he shot at these people multiple times, even when he saw they had been hit and gone down he continued fire. I would also point out that only one person in the group had an actual weapon, so it's not like they were attacking him with multiple guns. Not to mention he chased down two people and continued shooting at them, if it were self defense he would have been trying to flee and get away from them, I'd also point out that for self defense, why would he shoot at everyone if only one person had a weapon.
Finally I would finish my outline, and review my argument multiple times. I would have my peers also review it to see if there was anything else that could be added to make my case stronger. Once doing so I would continually practice my argument and think about anything the defense was going to bring up and a way that I could rebuttal against them.
•Decide who you are: Prosecution or defense
For this case I decided to serve as the defense
•What investigatory steps will you take next?
First I would like to interview neighbors, co-workers, and anyone who had no-biased relationships with the victims to find out if any of the victims were known to harbor ill feelings towards Hmongs or minorities. Were any of the victims known racists? I would also like to survey the crime scene in order to try to mentally recreate my client’s story and check for inconsistencies that might damage my client’s case. I would also want to find an expert to look the way in which the victims were shot. Were they execution style shootings or were there signs that the shootings were made in self defense? Next I would want to check all of Minnesota’s hunting laws to double check that the hunting parties did not violate any of the hunting laws. I would also want to discover Mr. Vang’s hunting experience. Is Mr. Vang an experienced enough hunter to be able to hit each target with execution-like precision? Both helpful and damaging to the case.
•What information do you feel you need to continue developing your case?
I would really be interested in knowing if any of the hunting party members had brushes with minorities in the past? Maybe a bar fight 10 years ago or some sort of other charge that might indicate a general dislike for minorities. Also if Mr. Vang has been compliant in leaving the private property, why did the first man on scene call for the rest of the hunting party?
•What type of character witnesses will you be looking for? What will you want them to testify about?
Character witnesses I will want to look at are those who can testify to Mr. Vang’s character. He has had several brushes with the law in his past but he seemed to have kept them under control as of lately. Was Mr. Vang in any sort of anger management classes that would make it look like he’s been doing a good job of controlling his anger and its unlikely that he would have an episode having came so far in a program? I would also want testimony as to the character of the victims and any known brushes with racism.
•What type of expert witness(es) will you want? Why?
The types of expert witness I would want is someone who is an expert in shooting. I would want him to look at the autopsy reports and try to discern whether or not the shootings could have potentially been made in self defense. I would also want a leader of Hmong relations to testify about the growing tension white and Southeast Asian hunters in this region.
•Decide who you are: prosecution or defense
Defense
•What investigatory steps will you take next?
I will look into Mr. Vang's past to fully understand what kind of reputation I would be working with or against. I would need to understand his feelings towards those of different ethnicities than his own. I would also need examples of his actions in the past involving people of different ethnicities. I would want to find out any other situations in which Mr. Vang was the victim of racism. I would also want to be aware of any DNA evidence or other evidence found at the scene or by performing autopsies.
•What information do you feel you need to continue developing your case?
I feel I need more information about Vang's past. Yes, he had previous encounters with domestic violence, but I would look further into those claims to try to poke holes in those cases. I would also take a close look at Mr. Vang's character since those incidents to try to demonstrate what an upstanding citizen he has been since those claims. I would also want more information about about any past dealings with bits of racism to use those as examples of him handling himself appropriately.
•What type of character witnesses will you be looking for? What will you want them to testify about?
People that have known Mr. Vang for a long time and can either talk about what an upstanding citizen he is, or how he has changed for the better since the charges a few years ago. I would also want to find people of different ethnicities to show how open Mr. Vang is to others of different origins than himself.
•What type of expert witness(es) will you want? Why?
I would want a psychologist to explain the reactions of individuals when dealing with stress (the constant racial slurs and dealing with a new culture) and the negative impact of stereotyping and racism on a person and community.
•What will your slant on the evidence be?
I would definitely want to stress the fact that all of the others were friends and were likely covering up for their deceased friends that were on the hunting trip with them. I would also bring up the idea of racism, and suggest that it was demonstrated not only by the other party (the ones who fired the first shots and the survivors) but by the police department when they were collecting evidence. I would agree that the situation could have obviously been handled better, but that this many counts of first degree murder was ridiculous.
I choose to be the defense.
1) Obviously I would start from the scene of the crime with the investigation and find the evidence of the first bullet shot at Vang. With that I would map out the events that followed because the stories do have a similar theme from both surviving victims and Vang. I would collect all initial statements made by all the witnesses, and also the reasoning behind all those hunters going out there to see Vang leave. I would think one hunter with a gun would be enough, why did 7 more people come out other then the fact to escalate the situation.
2) I would need to find out where were the guns of the seven hunters that showed up to harass Vang were. The ballistics match of the single rifle of the hunters and the first bullet that was fired at Vang. Background checks on all the 8 hunters to find any history of violence and complaint of racism or evidence that would lead to hate crimes.
3) Vang would be my primary witness, and show that his initial request to speak to a lawyer was fear of authorities. His waiver of rights and request to tell his story was due to even greater fear of being seen as guilty of mass murdering Americans. I would want him to testify of his fears when multiple hunters showed up and the racial slurs would only lead him to believe they were there to hurt him. The single shot that started the whole response from Vang was his military training kicking in that basically told him it was kill or be killed.
4) I would want a Social and Clinical Psychologist to be my expert witnesses, in explaining what went on inside Vang’s mind just before and after he started shooting back. The Social psychologist could explain how the hunters invoked fear in Vang for his life with such a large number of them showing up. The idea that racist remarks were used could be see as evidence of a hate crime that Vang could have interpreted in his mind. The Clinical Psychologist could argue that the single shot fired at Vang was what made all of his fears a reality and he reached the breaking point. From here on in order to save himself he would have to kill all possible threats against him because of that single rifle and possibility of more being acquired. His assessment of the situation led him to believe there was no way he can get far enough away with out being hunted if those fleeing hunters got to more weapons so his military training told him to shoot any possible threats to him making it out of the woods alive.
5) The slant of evidence I would use is that Vang could have been a victim of a hate crime but his fear of death and military training lead him to fight back to save himself. Also the fact that seven other hunters, armed or not, showed up, WHY? Why did seven other hunters show up? Fear of his death would be main argument in Vang’s defense.
6) The biggest pre-trial step would be to coach Vang to sell his side of the story and to make sure that it is as consistent as possible. Also jury selection would be crucial in selection citizens that are not natural born and have in some way experience harassment for their differences and possibly choosing those that have filed complaints against others for racial or ethnic harassment.
•Decide who you are: prosecution
•What investigatory steps will you take next?
The first things I would do after having Vang interviewed is to have a mental evaluation conducted if possible. Check into the background maybe even with prior employers and landlords and see if he had any violent tendencies.as mentioned with the casse info. they talked how he had some domestic violence issues with his wife and did pull a gun. Immediately interview anyone who was involved in the area before they are able to see the news or talk to each other.See if there is anyway to determine that vang was the first shooter. Arrange evidence and review and look for possible loopholes that defense could attack and visse versa.
•What information do you feel you need to continue developing your case? who first shot
•What type of character witnesses will you be looking for? What will you want them to testify about?victims, responders, and anyone who has observed Vangs violent behavior to convince the jury that this man is a habitual offender potentially, a threat to society, and highly dangerous
•What type of expert witness(es) will you want? Why?definitely a psychologist to explain that he is mentally sane at the time of crime. And someone who can explain what constitutes self defense.that way you eliminate possible defense strategies of mental insanity and self defense
•What will your slant on the evidence be? Vang showed no mercy and continually shot some of the victims multiple times. He observed there was only one gun amongst the victims yet continued to shoot them even in the back.
And any other preparatory steps you'll. take prior to trial.make sure all evidence is entered with proper procedure so Vang could not be charged lesser of freed on account of a technicality. Check for flaws in stories and logic.
•Decide who you were: Defense
•What investigatory steps will you take next?
I would go back to the crime scene and map out the events that took place. I would want to interview witnesses to the crime, on both sides (Vang’s hunter partners). Where were they? I want to know more about the time frame that everything went down. Make sure that it matches up with the wounded victims and Vang and his hunting partners. I want to match ALL casings to the guns that were fired and on scene.
To fully understand my client I would want to run a background check on him. I want to know exactly what I will be up against when the prosecution is questioning him. I don’t want surprises when I can help it. I also want to make sure that there is no racism in Vang past that might have made him lash out all to be ready for trial. Not only run a background check on Vang but also on the victims and the survivors of the crime. I would check for racism in their past and to see if they have had any trouble with Hmongs. I would interview co-works and others that might have known the victims to check on that too. I would want to review all the evidence from the case. I would want to focus on that first shot fired because that is the key to the defense. I would want to question why so many people came out and gained up 1 against 8, when one person would have been enough to get someone off private property. I would want to get Vang’s confession and make sure there were consistencies and everything matched up.
•I would want to focus on ballistics because that first shot was key to the murders. I would want to make sure that the shot matched with the victims. I do want to find out why 8 men were outside to get someone off their property. I do need more on Vang’s past, what type of criminal record, did the domestic violence have more to it. What really happened in that case? I need to know more about the victims (racism, how did they know where he was from, violence in their past…etc). I would want to know more about why the 8 men didn’t fire back at him considering they outnumbered him. How did he hit them so accurately? A self defense against the fires shot and the time frame that it took place. Those are some things that I need to have a more clear understanding of the consistencies and inconsistencies between two sides.
•I would want Clinical Psychologist who specialized in groups effects to the individual to not only show the mind state my client was in because of the racial slurs against him but also why the victims might not have fired back when they were clearly hunters. Because of the specialization I would want him to explain how that group threat may have put my client in a fight or flight state of mind. Why my client would have felt threatened by the group of men that clearly had something against my client by calling him names and firing at him. The state of mind of my client will be a big part of my case also. I would also
•I shots fired, and how there was the group effect of the individual to put his mind in the self defense mode and fire back to the shot fired at him, and the racial slurs that were said to him. The group effect.
•I just want to make sure that Vang is ready to go on the stand, and get his story down where it is told without mistakes and inconsistencies to his confession and any other time where his side has been told. I want to prepare my experts and my witnesses to the crime. Prepare prepare prepare!!!
•Decide who you are: prosecution or defense
prosecution
•What investigatory steps will you take next?
For the investigation, I would start at the scene of the crime, looking for any evidence of bullet shells, the tree stand that Vang was in, observe property lines, the posting and location of a "no trespassing" or "private property - DO NOT ENTER" signs, and any other possible evidence that may have been overlooked at the scene. Then I would interview surviving witnesses from the scene of the crime and get their accounts of what happened - Chai Vang, Lauren Hesebeck, and Terry Willers. I would compare their responses to the statements they gave to the police once they arrived. I would also interview surrounding neighbors and property owners to see if they heard anything or know anything about the people involved. In addition, I would want to talk with the first responders to the scene and any other key characters that were called to the scene for examination. I would have the guns examined to determine who fired the first shot, and how many times each gun was fired. I would also look at fingerprints on the guns to try to piece together the sequence of events from the scene.
•What information do you feel you need to continue developing your case?
To continue developing my case, I would want to look into the past of the victims and Chai Vang. I would want to see if their are any incidences of racial discrimination from the victims to see if they could have provoked the shootings. I would do a mental evaluation of Chai Vang to make sure he was sane at the time the crime was committed and sane to go through with the trial, that way he would not have any reason to plead insanity or psychologically disturbed. I would also look further into Vang's past accounts of domestic violence and his aggressive tendencies.
•What type of character witnesses will you be looking for? What will you want them to testify about?
Obviously for my eyewitnesses, I would call upon Lauren Hesebeck and Terry Willers, the two survivors from the scene. I would want them to give their versions about the sequence of events during the crime. Specifically, what could have provoked Vang to fire, if anything, and how the group of hunters responded. Also, who shot first, etc. Probably some of the people who first responded to the scene, detailing what they initially observed and the thoughts that went through their mind about what happened at the time.
•What type of expert witness(es) will you want? Why?
I will want a firearms expert to testify how many times each gun was fired, who may have shot first, and any other evidence relevant to the case that relates to firearms. I would also want my psychological examiner to testify that Vang was sane at the time of the crime and has a tendency to respond aggressively based on his past records of domestic violence.
•What will your slant on the evidence be?
What are the odds that one man can successfully kill 6 hunters and injure 2 others and go unharmed? Obviously the killer had an unfair advantage in some aspect, whether the victims had no weapons or a minimum number to retaliate to defend themselves or they were taken by surprise. Authorities said that there was only one firearm among the eight hunters, therefore why did Vang need to shoot at all eight to defend himself? Vang stated that Terry Willers took the first shot at him; however, no shell was ever recovered from Willer's gun.
And any other preparatory steps you'll take prior to trial.
It was mentioned in the reports that the property lines between private property and public property were very close. Therefore I would examine the lines, seeing if the average person would be able to decipher if they were trespassing or not, or if they would be able to identify which property they were on. Furthermore, I would see if there are any previous cases related to this one and what the verdicts/outcomes were, whether they were in favor of my prosecution or the defense.
I will try my hand at the defense side.
* Investigatory steps:
-Gather all evidence regarding this case (i.e. police reports, Vang's statement, video of Vang's interrogation-if applicable, Witness/Victims' statements, police photos, etc)
-obtain over-view and map of land including where property lines lay separating public and private property
-have Vang explain to me, in his own words, what happen and have him "walk-through" the incident using the map/photo obtained above
-since I lack knowledge about any type of gun, I would also research information about the Saige rifle Vang used (like why did he take the scope off first? Did he have to do this to shoot the others? Does this prove or disprove intent?)
- since the term "Mud Duck" was used by Willers when he was referring to Vang over the Walkie Talkie, I would research what the term means exactly to determine whether or not it is racially derogatory.
- I would also investigate whether the victims /witnesses have had any other incidents/ altercations that may have been racially motivated.
- I would find out how many incidents/altercations there have been in the area involving Hmong hunters and white hunters
- I would obtain a psychological evaluation of Vang to see if any negative experiences regarding his race (if any) he had in the military or with other people in society. These experiences may have contributed to an enhanced sense of fear and/ or rage when he was confronted by the other hunters
* Information needed
- why an analysis wasn't performed on the victims' weapon(s)
- how long was Vang interrogated?
- how was Vang interrogated?
- more information about the domestic abuse incidents
- witness claimed victim (Crotteau) has had incidents in the past with Hmong hunters trespassing, how many incidents were reported and how did Crotteau handle the incidents when they occurred?
- who fired their weapon first?
* Character Witnesses
- people who served with Vang in the military (primarily those who he served under who could comment on how disciplined he was and how "good" his military record was)
- other people who have hunted with Vang who could comment about his demeanor towards other hunters and if he was respectful of not trespassing on private property
-possibly his wife to help clarify the domestic violence calls
- other Hmong hunters who have had incidents with Crotteau that could talk about how Crotteau's demeanor was toward them
* Expert witnesses
- a psychologist or some other professional who could testify about the racial tension between the Hmong hunters and white hunters in the area
- a forensic person that can provide information regarding the crime scene that could be favorable to my client (basically an expert that can prove an alternative explanation of the crime scene then the one provided by the prosecution to give the jury reasonable doubt)
- possibly the psychologist who conducted the evaluation on Vang which could testify to Vang experiencing a heightened sense of fear or rage due during the incident due to prior negative interactions through out his life.
* Slant on evidence
- faulty police procedure in collecting and analyzing evidence (mainly their lack of analyzing the other hunters' guns even though one witness confirmed that their group had fired their rifles as well)
- discredit the witnesses/ victims with information about other race-related altercations/ incidents
- I would paint a picture of a man terrified for his life from a large group of confrontational and racist hunters
- I would also question how Crotteau knew Vang was Hmong (proven by the witness, Hesenbeck, claiming that Crotteau called Vang a "Hmong a-hole")
- I would also question how the group of hunters knew Vang was from Minnesota if "Mud Duck" was truly a non-racially motivated slang term for a hunter from Minnesota.
* Other trial preparation
- First and foremost, I file a motion to suppress Vang's "confession" due to possible coercion
- I would also file a motion to try and exclude the domestic abuse calls as evidence since they are not related to the incident and could bias the jury.
For this case I would with no doubt be the prosecutor. The first steps that I would take would be to see all of the evidence that has been collected on the case. I would want to have at my disposal all of the notes taken by detectives, pictures of the crime scene, witness reports and any recollection made by the defendant. After I collected all of this information I would develop a game plan of how I want to go through the evidence and what are the major points I would want to make in my case.
Once I have my game plan I would want to continue my case by collecting my own observation and evidence. I would want to conduct my own interviews with the witnesses and collect any background information about them, the victims and if there has been a history of violence associated with the property. I would then like to go to the crime scene and conduct my own walk through of the crime based on the previous evidence collected. I would want to do a background check on Vang especially if he has a history of violence with his wife. I would also like to talk to the detectives who collected the evidence.
My expert witnesses would be the detectives who worked on their case and possibly key members of their team. They would be good witnesses because of the work they did at the scene and what they saw. They are also experts in the area of victims and suspects. I would like to put Lauren Hesebeck and Terry Willers on the stand as my primary witnesses. The testimony of these two would be very important because they are the only ones other than Vang that know what really went on. I would also have someone such as a DNR worker to go over the hunting rules and regulations between public and private land. Another expert witness would be if I found any discrepancy in Vang’s past that would depict him as a violent and uncontrollable person.
My slant evidence would be the fact that Vang was claiming self defense, but the group of hunters only had one gun and there was no evidence that there was a return fire from the group. Also that he want out of the way to shoot one of the hunters and in self defense a person would not run after his offenders, but in the other direction in hope of escaping them. I would also use Vang’s temper and history of a violent personality.
Before I went to trial I would want to make sure that all of the information is valid and none of it can be turned away. I would want to make sure all proper steps were taken both inside and outside of the courtroom by all parties of the prosecution. I would also want to make sure all of the testimonies I received or witnesses that would be going on stand were all on the same page. Over all I would just want to make sure my ducks were in a row.
I will be the Prosecution. My investigatory steps would include an outline of the whole case. I would figure out what the charges are against Chai Vang and how he is pleading. Next I would collect all the evidence that has been collected so far. This would include photos of the crime scene, physical evidence, and statements made by everyone involved. I would then go and interview the surviving victims and their families, the families of the ones who were killed, the responding officers, the defendant and any other witnesses to the crime. As I gathered this information I would fill in my outline to make it more complete.
The information I would need to continue developing my case would be about Chai Vang past. I would want to look into this hunting experience, how often he hunts, and who he hunts with. I would also look into his criminal background. She what type of interaction he has had with the police and what crimes he has committed before. This will give me a better idea of who Chai Vang is. I would look for other acts of violence to help prove that he could have shot those hunters just because he could. I would also want to know the laws surrounding private property and any other cases that are similar to this one.
For my character witnesses I would call the two survivors. I would want them to testify about what they were doing that day, what happened (have them go down a timeline), how the defendant acted from their first interaction with them. I would also call Chai Vang wife as a character witnesses because she could testify about her husband’s anger issues and his previous crimes.
For my expert witnesses I would want a gun expert. The gun expert to testify that the bullets were from Chai Vang gun and that he was the one that fired his gun first. I would also want a psychologist to testify about Chai Vang mental state and that he did not fire in self defense. The psychologist could prove that Chai Vang was not insane if that is the plea he decides to take.
My slant on evidence would be that out of all the hunters only one of them had a gun. Chai Vang fired multiple times at each individual, shooting them even where they were on the ground. He even proceeded to chase after two hunters that he had not killed yet. If this was a case of self defense, why would he need to go to such extremes to shoot everyone? Just shooting at the hunter with a gun would have showed the other that he meant business and he could have left the scene. He went over the top shooting these hunters meaning that he meant to kill them.
Some other preparatory steps I would take prior to trail were to make sure I have all the evidence and information I need to secure a conviction of Chai Vang. I would also ask others who were not involved in the case to look over my detailed outline and see if there is anything else I need. I would go over my outline and argument many times until I felt I was ready.
I would be the prosecutor in this situation, because I feel that he is guilty.
•What investigatory steps will you take next?
-I would obviously check out the scene of the crime for evidence. I'd interview Vang and look at all the evidence that's already known about the case. I would also interview the families of the victims, and get a back round check of the victim and suspects.
•What information do you feel you need to continue developing your case?
-I would need to get a back round check on Vang and see if he's a violent person (I mean, he did hold up a gun to his wife...odds are against him). I would also want to see if Vang has hunted before because if he hasn't then there would be no need for him to be on the hunting grounds that day. I'd also want to see if he and the victims had had any encounters before. I would want to know if Vang had a license for his gun, because if he didn't that's another violation. I'd also want to ask the families of the victims if they were in fact racist, or if the claim that Vang stated was invalid.
•What type of character witnesses will you be looking for? What will you want them to testify about?
-I think it's pretty standard that I'd want the character witnesses to be the two survivors. I would ask them to simply state their interpretation of the day, and say when the events occurred. I'd want them to do this to see how much/if Vang's story and theirs conflict in major ways. With the conflicts, the jury would then chose what story they think is more accurate.
•What type of expert witness(es) will you want? Why?
-I would want psychologist in this case to determine whether Vang's crime was a fit of range, or if he was mentally unstable. I think a psych expert would be able to help out a lot on this case.
•What will your slant on the evidence be?
-My slant evidence would be the fact that out of all the hunters, they only had one gun. I understand that it only takes one gun to kill someone, but Vang is claiming it as self-defense. Yes, a group of hunters would be intimidating however there was no need for Vang to fire at ALL of them and shoot them down if they didn't pose any legit threat. In the article it said that he 'chased 2 of them down'. If this was self defense you wouldn't be chasing them down, you'd more than likely shoot the guy with the gun then flee the scene. If it was self defense, Vang would of been the one running, not the one chasing after victims. So, what I'm getting at here is that this is no way self-defense. It's merely a hate crime.
Prosecution or defense?
Prosecution
I would interview the survivors and the families of the victims to get a story about the annual hunting expedition as well as what had happened that day. I would also interview any neighbors that would have been close to the hunting ground that the incident took place to see if they heard any shots around the time of the shootings. After all of the interviewing had been done, I would make an outline of the case. I feel that the information about Vang and his previous arrests for domestic abuse and assault with a gun to his wife should be put into this case, because it shows that he has had a tendency to be violent with a weapon. I also think that the rifle that he used during the shootings should be taken into custody to determine how many bullets can be held in the gun. This could be one way to tell how many shots he took, depending on how many bullet holes they found in the victims. I would also want to know the exact location of the shootings and if infact the victims used racial slurs toward Vang.
The witnesses I would use would be the survivors of the shootings, because they had first hand experience of the shootings and they would be able to tell what happened, how many times they were shot, if they used racial slurs towards Vang, and if Vang did indeed run after them and shoot them down.
The expert I would use would be a firearm expert, because they would know how many bullets a semi-automatic could hold and if the bullets they found were from Vang's gun. I would also want a forensic scientist to help with the direction that they bullets entered the victims bodies. If the bullets entered the bodies from the back, then I would have more evidence that Vang shot them while they were trying to run away from him.
My slant on the evidence would be that if Vang was shooting because of self-defense, why did he shoot all of the hunters if only one of them had a gun? Why did he keep shooting the victims when they were already laying on the ground? Why did he go after two other hunters after he had killed 6 of them already?
My preparatory steps that I would take would be to go over the outline and my argument many times to make sure that I know the whole story front and back. I would also read more about Vang's history of his other domestic violence cases and if he has ever been charged for anything else. Knowing the history of the accused can be very helpful in the prosecution.
-I would be the prosecutor for this case.
-My first step would be to investigate the scene. See if there were any no trespassing signs anywhere near the spot where shots were fired. Then my next step would be to get statements from the two living eyewitnesses. Also, I would like to get statements from the other hunters who were back in the cabin to figure out the details of who was radioed by the group of hunters and what they responded back to the group and try to find any other details that would help my case. Next, I would begin to prepare myself for trial and write out who I wanted on the jury, who I wanted to use to testify, how I wanted to cross-examine Vang, and what I wanted to use against Vang to prove he was guilty.
-To continue with my case I would definitely need to organize the facts. I would need to see if both the living eyewitnesses stories match, and how they match according to the other hunters located at the cabin. I would then need to speak with the officers who responded to the shooting and get statements from them. Next, I would need to make copies of the autopsies taken by the six men who were killed. Also, I would think it would be important to take a look at Vang's history. It is curious to know there have been reported domestic disputes at Vang's residence. Even two in the past year. Also, I feel that it may be important to find out his history in the Army.
-I would definitely use testimony from the two eyewitnesses. I would want them to appear professional and intelligent because that may earn the trust of the jury and allow them to believe that no racial slurs were present at this shooting which may have been the motivation behind Vang's shooting. Also, I would want them to say that they told Vang he should leave because he was on private property. I would put another hunter on the stand who was at the cabin at the time to cooberate their story with the eye witnesses as far as to what they know. Other important witnesses that I will use will be the officers who were first at the scene. I would want them to explain that they found Vang with his gun that was used at the scene of the crime. It might be important to also use the person who completed the autopsy to explain that the bullets found in the dead hunters matched what was found in Vang's gun if that is the case.
-As far as expert witnesses that I want would definitely include the hunters that lived and were eye witnesses. Also, I would want a blood splatter analysist to show that the way the hunters were shot shows they were trying to flea the scene and that it was true that Vang shot them as they were running away.
-My slant on the evidence would be that in fact Vang was guilty and that he has a history of being violent. He even threatened his wife with a gun. My slant would be that Vang is a dangerous man and that he knew he was on private property but instead chose to be on the hunting grounds illegally.
-I believe the most important part when preparing for the trial is understanding the steps that led to the shooting and finding out all the details and even understanding what motive Vang may have had to be on private property and to shoot at the hunters. Another important preparation would be figuring out what type of jurors I would want on this case. I would ask myself if it would be beneficial for me to choose a juror who has prior hunting experience or to choose someone who has no experience hunting.
Defense
I would first gather written and verbal statements from both involved parties, collect all available evidence, and begin sorting out who was saying what and try to establish a time line. Considering there were survivors from the hunter group, emotions will be running high in this situation which can alter a persons statement and/or behavior. Then I would revisit the crime scene to compare the layout with that of which was expressed in both parties statements. I would speak with the landowner and have them walk me through their property line, as well as, contact the local DNR office to have them show me the land boundaries (public vs private land). Since I myself am not an avid hunter I would need to know what guns were used and by who, ammunition, what hunting season it was (help in determining rifle season, shotgun season). I would also research what the weather was like in the area (sunny, overcast) - this would help determine viability especially with the distances involved. I would also verify how long the hunters had been hunting since some of them were relatively young.
As a prosecutor I would obviously look to see what Vang's past was like (background check, speak with spouse). I would check to see the eyesight abilities of the surviving hunters, Vang's abilities, as well as finding out how well each victim's eyesight was (and whether they wore glasses, contacts, sunglasses, etc). I would cross reference statements once again and see what did or did not match up and then speak with neighbors and spouses to gain another perspective on the hunters and their backgrounds.
In regards to expert witnesses I would bring in a psychologist to see who's story seems to be more believable. I would also like to see an experienced gunsmith (or an expert along the lines, NRA, etc).
It sounds to me that the hunters were upset someone was on their land and they wanted to take justice into their own hands. Racial slurs were used - possibly these men were extreme racists. From the sounds of it they had ASSUMED he was from Minnesota because of his ethnicity (St. Paul area is heavily populated with Hmong people). With that being said, Vang is out of his element (in Wisconsin instead of home in Minnesota) which means he probably doesn't know the land very well. If this is the case he isn't going to consider contacting the DNR office and mapping out a "legal" hunting area. If I was shot at, of course I am going to fire back adrenaline is going to take over. The landowners should have been responsible by calling the local law enforcement instead of firing a shot at a trespasser.
I will take the prosecution side of the case.
To investigate I would have to see the area in which the incident took place and any possible exhibits the Sheriff or the hospital would have. I would research Vang's past. Since I know he was once in the Army I would see if I could get any information from his days in the Army. I would want to find out what Vang had been doing earlier that day. I would research the Hmong community that Vang was a part of and see how well adjusted to American culture they are and if they face any prejudice in their area. I would want to find out where his hunting partners were at during the incident. I would like to see the route he took to get into the private property and see if the signs were clearly visible. I would also check his criminal record. Other information I would need would be the history of all people involve, mental, criminal, and any past conflicts with race.
I would interview his wife, with whom his had domestic violence incidences. I would interview his brother who seems willing to speak about Vang's previous acts of aggression. I would interview the survivors and anyone who interacted with anyone involved- the people who stayed at the cabin, the man who picked Vang up, the Sheriff. I want to know every detail about what happened that day. I would then interview the people he had been hunting with. Did anything happen early that day that would affect his mentality? I would also have character references/witnesses for the victims, to prove that these people are calm, non-racists.
The expert witnesses I would want would be expert hunters, who could speak about hunting etiquette, for those jurors who are not familiar. I would want the land owner, who would know the set up of the land, how many times a year people trespass, where the signs are and other details he might be able to give. I would also want to interview other Sheriffs who have dealt with similar situations. How did this differ from them?
My slant on the evidence is that Vang admitted what happened. He ran towards them to kill them all and leave no witnesses, he ran from ATVs but in the end turned himself in. He said he wanted to wait for a lawyer, but then consented to admit to the crime. He came out and admitted what happened- he is a guilty man and he knows it.
During the jury selection I would make sure that no persons on the jury have been distinctively discriminated against previously for race or any other types of traits that are often discriminated against.
My preparation for the defense's slants are thus:
"It was self defense!"
There have been mismatched statements whether or not the supposed shot was short of him or over him. Had his life been truly endangered from this shot, he'd have a sharper memory of the event. Additionally, after the supposed shot was taken, he took the scope off of his rifle to shoot at them. Had he been truly fearful of his life, he would not have had the time or have a clear thought process to do this and he could have still shot them with it on. It seems as though he tried to make shooting them a challenge, like a game. Additionally, this could not be a moment of insanity because he continued on for a while running and shooting and asking if they were dead yet. He shot for death and not for disabling the supposed shooters. According to the reading provided he has not once said sorry, if it was a moment of insanity he would have realized by now that what he did was insane and the proper thing to do after you kill someone's family member is to say, "Sorry". He has been a part of the United States culture for enough time to know something as simple as that.
"He was coerced into confession"
He was not coerced, he said he wanted a lawyer at 10:15 and by 10:30 wanted to be interviewed. The only thing that could have happened in that time is Vang realizing that he was going to jail. True coercion takes more time and effort than that. Vang was read the Miranda Rights more than once, stated that he could read and write English, and said he understood his rights and what he was doing once he was interviewed. He spoke about all that happened without leading questions or coercion.
As the case continued I would have more detail, and more to add. This is what I have for now.
I will be taking the side of the defense. Many years ago I remember watching a show on CNN that actually talked about this case. I remember hearing the story of this man killing six people while hunting because of a land dispute. I knew he was in jail for life. This knowledge of the case I will admit contaminated my view from the very moment I read the blog post. It’s scary how much of an impact our memory has. When choosing a jury, I would do my best to find the most unbiased people I could. This is bringing me to take the challenge of being the side of the defense. Sometimes as a lawyer you would need to maybe defend something or someone you felt was wrong or guilty.
As I read the Blonde Justice blog posts I was extremely overwhelmed at the outlined structure of putting a case together. I am one of those people that loves making lists and following them so this was something I like to see. I plan on using that outline to make a better case structure.
As I stated earlier I would take the side of the defense. While reading the many articles I found that the racial slurs made by some of the hunters, along with the difference in culture between the Hmong people and the other people of the community.
• What investigatory steps will you take next?
I would immediately make a well planned out outline for this case. I would follow something along of the lines of the outline on the Blonde Justice blog. I would consider what pre-trial motions there are. If any of the witnesses must be excused or if certain pieces of evidence must be excluded, like the fact that the confession by Vang was made without a lawyer present after he asked for one. Jury Selection would come next and be of great important. Obviously people from the community as well as families would be out of the question to serve on an unbiased jury. One might even look into getting people who had not witnessed the types of racism toward the Hmong people before. The opening arguments would involve speaking of the angle I would take to defend this man. This angle would consist of defending the right to self defense as well as bringing attention to the problem of racism toward the Hmong people of that community and the negative social effects it may have been having on Vang. The prosecution case as well as the defense case would both come into play when looking at each other’s strengths and weaknesses. The angle of the prosecution’s case might influence what angle I would then take with mine and what types of witnesses I would call to the stand. The closing argument is really something I’d like to spend some time talking about. I have watched court cases on t.v. and in my opinion being passionate about your side as well as appealing to the jury in the right way goes an extremely long way. Here is where you want a passionate and maybe even over the top lawyer who is going to leave the jury thinking about them and what they said. In the Vang trial I would greatly appeal to people on the topic of racism and how that would effect a person’s emotional well being.
• What information do you feel you need to continue developing your case?
I would search much deeper into the mental health of Vang. And not only the emotional well being of this man, but possibly the general well being of the Hmong people of that community. I feel that maybe interviewing people who have been victims of racism as well as the unfair treatment toward the Hmong people ewould be valid to determining what kind of mental heath issues a community may have helped impose on a person like Vang.
•What type of character witnesses will you be looking for? What will you want them to testify about?
I would honestly be worried about calling Vang to the stand. Because of his different heritage the articles that talk about his court interview and how he basically told people he thought some of those men deserved to die. I would possibly call a family member of Vang to the stand to express to the jury that this man is another family man trying to make his way in the world. I would also call up a psychologist that would talk about the dramatic effects of racism towards people and how that might affect mental health.
•What type of expert witness(es) will you want? Why?
I again believe psychologists would be a great to discuss examples of the power of prejudice on a person’s well being. I would consider also having an expert on the history of the Hmong people so that they could maybe tell of how their views of the world, like their view of private land, may be very different compared to those of most people born in the American culture.
• What will your slant on the evidence be?
My technique would definitely be to follow up on the racial slurs made toward this man that would just hurt enough to send him over the edge. I would also rely heavily on the facts about the single gunshot toward Vang that may then give reason for him to shoot due to self defense.
And any other preparatory steps you'll. take prior to trial.
• I again would do my best to prepare for every curve ball that would be thrown at the defense in the trial. I would also focus my attention on appealing to the jury that Vang and his people were prejudiced against.
For this case I will take the Prosecution side.
The investigator steps that I would take would be checking out the crime scene. For any shell casings that would be used from the weapons. With this you would be able to match up if there was more than one gun. Blood splatter and tracks would indicate how the gun fight all went down. I would then talk with any witnesses that were at the scene and get their story. Finding out all the information before I talk with Vang.
I would look at autopsy reports to see how they were shot and the distance they were shot at from. If they were executed; like shot once then shot again to finish them off. These are all facts that can be determined from an autopsy. With this I won't even need to talk to Vang basically. But after the facts are in, I would then go to Vang and speak with him and get his side of the story.
The type of character witnesses would be the two survivors. But like all cases, witnesses are pretty useless. Trauma and dramatization tend to fall into a lot of witnesses stories, so the truth is really skewered. I would want the witnesses to testify about what was all said, get both stories separate to see if they match up, and then I would want the time line of when they arrived and when the shooting started.
The expert witness would probably be a psychologist to determine if the man had anger problems and trouble dealing with authority or rules. His wife, because she would be able to tell us if he was a irritable man. Even though she was unresponsive for the police when he held the gun to her head. Maybe after this, she will cooperate, doesn't hurt to try.
My evidence would be any shell casings, and if the hunters did fire at Vang, how come eight men could not even hit one guy and Vang shot and killed 6 and injured 2. Hmmm...this is strange? I thought 8 against 1 was a sure bet. At least one of them could have hit Vang.
I'll be the prosecution
•What investigatory steps will you take next?
I would visit the crime scene and review all of the evidence. I would check out pictures of the crime scene, and review the bullet casings that were found to make sure they all match with the gun. I would talk with the two people who were injured and ask the other people in their group to see if they also saw anything.
•What information do you feel you need to continue developing your case?
I would review the witness's statements to police and perhaps even talk with them, and I would be sure to look at the autopsy reports.
•What type of character witnesses will you be looking for? What will you want them to testify about?
Maybe someone that was in the military with him, someone who knows what kind of shooting skills Vang has. Also his wife could probably testify about his anger/domestic violence issues as well.
•What type of expert witness(es) will you want? Why?
I would want a blood splatter analyst, if they can show that Vang chased and hunted them down and they were running away from him at the time they were shot.
•What will your slant on the evidence be?
I would try to prove he was guilty by showing he had a history of violence, and that he had served in the military and has experience with weapons.
How about I take defense?
I will go to the crime scene and collect data. I will interview people who know Wang, and people who knew the men who were shot. Look for any information about them firing their guns at Vang first.
What information do you feel you need to continue developing your case?
I really want information about them shooting at Vang, and any thing about the victims possibly being a tad racist.
What type of character witnesses will you be looking for? What will you want them to testify about?
Someone who will portray Vang in a postive light, and the victims in a negative light.
•What type of expert witness(es) will you want? Why?
Crime scene invetigators. Gun Experts. Blood splatter analyst. These people would hopefully be able to use science to show it was likely self defense. (where the bullets fell, etc.)
•What will your slant on the evidence be?
I would try to show that these victims were a little hostile.