Recently I noted that in ancient Athens both sides in a criminal trial employed professional “rhetors” to write their presentations to the jury. In the trial of Damon Darling, it seems to me that both the prosecution and the defense would have done themselves and all Miamians a favor by doing the same thing: they ought to have had someone else craft their presentations. Neither side seems to have a coherent story to tell the jury.

First, I believe the jury will find the defendant guilty, regardless of any evidence or testimony that a third person may have been involved or that the cops investigated the incident selectively. Furthermore, the “stand your ground” law is irrelevant to this case, and the jury will disregard it.

Why? No matter how many people were involved and no matter who fired the first shot, any rational juror (who has not first been threatened to vote not guilty) would find anyone involved in such a gun battle guilty of murder. Most jurors will probably also resent the way the prosecution let one of the participants plead guilty to reduced charges.

That’s what I mean about poor courtroom rhetoric on both sides in this case. Both sides want to have it both ways: the prosecution wants Damon Darling to go to jail for life for killing a child, but they seem to be unconcerned about letting a murderous gangbanger, Leroy Larose, get away with a seven-year sentence, and they also seem unconcerned about the mysterious third gunman whom two witnesses saw. The defense wants the jury to acquit Damon Darling because no one can be sure who fired the first shot or whether the AK-47 bullet that killed the child came from his gun.

Neither side seems to see the 800 lb. gorilla (again). These people were involved in a drug deal gone bad and in the process someone died. Isn’t that felony murder, no matter what?

The prosecution ought to have charged everyone they could implicate in the shootout with murder. They did not need to plea bargain to get a conviction of either party charged in the case. Instead, prosecutors ought to have demanded that the cops fully investigate the alleged third participant, and they should have prosecuted them all.

The rhetorical message to the jury, given the prosecution’s charging decisions, is that everyone knows full well what happened that day, and no one wants the jury to find the truth or do justice. The prosecution only wants the jury to rubberstamp the charges by convicting Damon Darling.

• Sidebar: Furthermore, I suspect the prosecution opposes the “stand your ground” law and hopes to use this case to discredit it—for purely political reasons. (Maybe we ought to stop electing state’s attorneys and instead hire them based on their credentials, rather than their party affiliations.)

I believe the presentation by the prosecution in this case will produce anger and frustration during jury deliberations, but even so they will have no choice other than to find Darling guilty.

As for the defense, they ought never to have claimed that someone else shot first. By doing so, they tacitly admitted that the defendant shot the bullet that killed the child.

Now, the defense is pointing a finger at an alleged third shooter. Rhetorically, while this tells the jury that the cops probably did not investigate the case properly, it also tells the jury that this was a typical gangbanger shootout. The defendant clearly was at the scene of the crime for no good reason. (IMHO, pointing the finger at a specific third party is always dangerous—far from good rhetoric.)

This is not a good “reasonable doubt” defense. Yes, the jury will know the cops did not fully investigate the shooting. Yes, the jury will know the principle detective was playing dumb on the stand—and they won’t like that. (He did not come off as a Columbo, only as a slightly thuggish, possibly slightly corrupt, detective. Yes, the jury will know it is possible a third party with an AK-47 (with an attachment that caught shell casings) was involved.

But let’s get real: If you were on this jury, would you be willing to let yet another gangbanger go free when a little girl died in the crossfire during a shootout in which he admits to having been involved?

For once, this believer in the state’s burden of proof hopes the jury finds this gangbanger guilty, even if it wasn’t his bullet that killed the child. When I think back to my childhood (a time when the worst gangs were “rebels without a cause” who engaged in illegal drag racing and dealt in stolen hubcaps), I cannot understand what has gone wrong with the country in so little time.

We’ve got to do something about these gangs. They have accrued as much power as the Mafia used to have. They are no longer isolated, local groups of thugs. They are multi-national organizations.

• Sidebar: I’m currently listening to TruTV commentators claim that the defense should tell the jury that a conviction will compound the tragedy. Really? Is that really what you want our justice system to do—let gangbangers go free even when they admit their culpability?