So the prosecution made this one mistake that led to my client being found not guilty. So let me paint the scene for you. My client was leaving the bar heavily intoxicated, going to get an Uber, and came across a girl that he wanted to talk to. So he goes up and he talks to the girl, and then five guys come down the road and say, "You need to leave that girl alone." And my client says, "Do you know these five guys?" And she said, "No, I don't know them." Well, the five guys came up and eventually got in my client's face, told him he needed to get the F out of there. He didn't need to be bothering the poor little drunk girl, and basically pushed my client. My client swung one time. So my client hit the alleged victim. The alleged victim fell and hit the sidewalk and basically fractured his skull in the process of hitting the ground. The jury was told about a very significant injury, but it was a really unintended injury. My client didn't intend to inflict these injuries, but he was charged with aggravated and in Tennessee, he doesn't have to intend to cause the injury. He just has to have intended to hit the person, and the injury had to be significant or life-threatening. And these were pretty significant injuries. So we have a jury trial last week, and the state called all the witnesses, all the five guys. The five guys were from a bachelor party. Of course, the five guys are going to stick up with their buddy. And so we teach the jury about what to do with the bias. I mean, do you not believe anything they say, or can you believe part of what they say? Well, it really depends on how they come across, but the state didn't call the girl. The girl was an independent witness. We didn't know the girl, they didn't know the girl, and the state didn't call her as a witness. And basically, that was a huge fatal flaw of the case because the jury really wants to hear from unbiased witnesses. What goes through my head when they don't call somebody that should have been a very significant witness. And what was going through my head was reasonable doubt. When we teach a jury about what reasonable doubt is, reasonable doubt is very significant. It's a very significant level of proof that juries have to come to a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't require absolute certainty, but it does require a moral certainty. [music] So, juries have to come to a conclusion that the state has proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt as to every element. So, what I was thinking when they didn't call this witness was that's reasonable doubt, in my opinion. If you don't call the only unbiased witness on the scene of this fight to tell what happened, then how do you really know what happened? And because they didn't call this independent witness, I really believe that was one of the major factors that this jury found him not guilty. There was a couple of pieces of evidence that could have been better. There was a video of this incident, but there was a big tent that was right in the way of the video, and you could see part of the fight, but you couldn't see the most crucial aspect of the fight. So, in my closing, I focused the jury on two things: the video and the independent witness. So, I said to the jury, "In your head, I want you to raise your hand if you wish that tent had been out of the way. And raise your hand in your head if you wish you had heard from the only independent witness on the scene." If your hand is raised in your head, you've got reasonable doubt. So, I really think that that was ultimately, at the end of the day, the reason this jury came back with a not guilty.