NJ State Trooper Trial - Thorough Defense but Uninspired Closing

Attorney William Subin is defending State Trooper Robert Higbee in a vehicular homicide trial in Cape May County, NJ. He has called multiple experts to discuss highly technical aspects of the accident reconstruction and Higbee's "amnesia" about certain aspects of the crash. He has called 39 character witnesses. Higbee testified extremely effectively, a sure sign that he was well prepared. In my opinion, Subin has done an extremely thorough job. In my further opinion, this tragic situation should NOT have resulted in any criminal charges in the first place.

My respectful disagreement with Subin -- a fine attorney -- is the manner by which he presented his closing argument today. Subin remained, true to form, extremely thorough and thoughtful. Yet, respectfully, I feel that Subin missed the opportunity to take the upper hand and to harness the natural advantages of his position. Subin is, after all, a dream defendant. An unblemished State trooper, former football star, community volunteer, friend to everyone, ever-helpful and polished. He spends his days and nights protecting the public. Thirty-nine of his friends, colleagues and acquaintances all agree that Robert Higbee is one of the best people they have ever met. He is the poster boy for a good citizen.

Instead of jumping right in and pounding on these obvious points with every fiber of his being, Subin instead spent more than an hour parsing for the jury the most boring and technical minutiae of the vehicular homicide statute and jury charges. By doing so, he virtually conceded that the jurors should be hyper-critical in their review of Higbee's actions that night.

But this is not a bench trial. This is not a civil trial. This is a criminal trial where twelve people -- including some who were brought to tears by Higbee's earlier testimony -- will make a fundamental choice: does Robert Higbee deserve to be criminally convicted?

Subin will likely win this trial. For justice sake, I sure hope so. But in my opinion Subin would have been better served in his closing argument by pointing to his client, referencing his testimony and his 39 character witnesses and sitting down.