This is based on a real life murder trial but has been altered to make it more simplistic.
A 25-year old writer "Andy" becomes famous overnight due to the publication of his latest novel. However, the fame and the media/fan harassment becomes too much for the young sensitive author so he escapes to a small town and assumes a fake identity.
Andy quietly buys a small house and settles in for a few weeks. He becomes acquainted with his neighbour, Paul Allen and they become friends.
One morning, the police find plastic bags floating in the harbour water containing Paul Allen's chopped up body. Every part of Paul Allen was found except for the head which had gone missing. Soon after, the police arrest Andy and charge him with the murder of Paul Allen.
The police find inside Andy's house a handgun; when they ran it through with forensics and ballistics it was confirmed that a single bullet had been fired from the handgun. The police also had conclusive forensic evidence that Paul Allen was killed in Andy's house. Tools used to chop up Paul Allen were found by the garbageman and turned in to the police.
Andy's trial becomes a media %$^*storm because of the author's high profile.
Prosecution's Story:
Andy invited Paul Allen over to his house. They had a verbal disagreement of some kind. Andy pulled out the handgun and shot Paul Allen in the head. After coming to his senses, Andy took out some tools and chopped up the corpse of Paul Allen. Then he put the pieces into the bags, walked over to the nearby harbour and dumped them into the water.
Andy knew that the bullet lodged in the head was very seriously damaging evidence, so he hid the head somewhere else (who knows God where). Unfortunately for Andy, the contents of the bags did not sink, they floated instead.
Andy should be charged with murder and should never see the light of day again.
The prosecution theorises that Andy had grown to like his new quiet life under the assumed identity but that Paul Allen somehow uncovered the author's real identity and threatened to expose him. This is why Andy killed him.
Andy's Story:
Andy says that he did kill Paul Allen and he did try to dispose of the corpse but it was all 100% self defence. Andy's lawyers look up Paul Allen's history and show that he had previously been charged and convicted of armed robbery. Paul Allen was also, not long ago, involved in a very messy divorce process during which his wife alleged he had been extremely violent towards her and the kids.
Andy says that he walked into his room one day and to his absolute horror Paul Allen stood there, apparently stoned and drunk as all hell. Paul Allen shouted random, threatening obscenities at Andy and then took out Andy's handgun and threatened to shoot Andy. Andy tried to grab the gun in a brief struggle; this caused the gun to fire off a random bullet and hit Paul Allen in the head.
After realising he had killed Paul Allen in self-defence, Andy panicked. He decided not to report it to the police because he didn't trust the police and he felt the police would not believe him. So he chopped up Paul Allen's corpse over several hours, put them into bags, and then dumped them into the harbour in bags. Andy said he doesn't remember what happened to the head.
The fact that Paul Allen was "stoned and drunk as all hell" when he was killed is demonstrated by the forensic evidence.
...
During the trial, Andy was called to the stand where he explained his version of the events when examined and cross-examined. The prosecution grilled him very very hard the part where he disposed of the corpse; suggesting that someone innocent wouldn't try to hide a body. They also try to unsettle him by asking him in lots of very explicit questions regarding HOW he had chopped up the body (ex "did you start with the head?").
Andy appears visibly shaken but he stuck to his story, often saying "I don't remember."
The prosecution asked Andy why there are no prints on the guns (either his or Paul Allens). Andy said that he had wiped the entire surface of the gun on the night of the incident as part of his ill-advised efforts to conceal the incident.
The prosecution asked Andy what he did the next day when he came back to the harbour and saw that the bags were floating. Andy said "well at that point I realise that I have a serious problem. (shrugs*) I screwed it up."
During the trial, it was revealed that Andy had originally used the limited tools in his shed to cut up the corpse; he made a very big mess and many parts could not be cut through properly. He realised he needed other tools so he strolled over to Wal Mart to buy more cutting equipment and bags (the employees of Wal Mart subsequently testified at court). While cutting up the corpse, Andy drank through several bottles of liquor, being intoxicated throughout the process.
...
In the closing statements, the Prosecution says that Andy's behaviour is not consistent with that of an innocent person. Innocent people do not randomly chop up corpses because they "don't trust the police." The forensics place Paul Allen's death at Andy's house, they have Andy's gun, the tools that Andy used to chop, they have the corpse and Andy himself has admitted to the killing. It's "simple and shut, Andy is a murderer, let's move on." They suggest that Andy is a liar and its your job to convict him because guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Andy's lawyers remind the jury that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that the prosecution has failed to do that. They don't have a credible motive for why Andy would murder Paul Allen (if there was a threat Andy would be "exposed," why didn't the rich Andy simply relocate to a new place again?). They have failed to PROVE that the killing was NOT in self-defence. There's absolutely NOTHING in the prosecution's evidence that disproves Andy's version of events which should be assumed as true in the absence thereof. Given Paul Allen's past violent history and the fact that the forensics prove that Paul Allen was stoned and drunk at the time of his death... Andy's version of events is entirely credible. If there is even the remotest realistic chance that Andy is telling the truth (and Andy's lawyers say there is more than that), it is your job to acquit him. The details and imagery of Andy cutting up a corpse may unsettle people but it has nothing to do with the actual issue of whether or not the killing was in self-defence. The fact that Andy doesn't remember everything is also normal because the event was highly highly traumatic for him. Cutting up the corpse and throwing it into a river may have been a stupid, retarded play... but it doesn't make you a murderer.
...
The following profiles for the characters involved in the hypothetical have been provided for further consideration.
...
You are a member of the jury. The only options in this legal setting is to either convict them of murder or acquit completely (there is no flexibility whatsoever, he's either a murderer or he's completely innocent). If convicted of murder, Andy will never see the light of day again. If Andy is acquitted, then Andy walks.
What decision do you reach based on the facts above? Why? Please explain.
The facts in the hypothetical are meant to be pretty clear so you can act as a juror, if there's any major area of uncertainty, please let me know and I will edit to clarify if necessary.
