0% found this document useful (0 votes)
5 views1 page

Test 1

An 18-year-old boy was accused of arson in a small-town trial, but his public defender questioned the motive behind his actions. Security footage revealed he was dealing with a malfunctioning vending machine before the fire started, leading the jury to conclude the fire was accidental. The verdict was not guilty, highlighting the boy's innocence and unfortunate hunger.

Uploaded by

gudly2013
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
5 views1 page

Test 1

An 18-year-old boy was accused of arson in a small-town trial, but his public defender questioned the motive behind his actions. Security footage revealed he was dealing with a malfunctioning vending machine before the fire started, leading the jury to conclude the fire was accidental. The verdict was not guilty, highlighting the boy's innocence and unfortunate hunger.

Uploaded by

gudly2013
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

"Reasonable Doubt"

In a small-town trial, an 18-year-old boy stood accused of arson. His public defender, Ms. Romero,
stood before the jury with one question:

“If he truly wanted to destroy the building... why did he call 911 before the fire got out of control?”

The prosecution argued it was to cover his tracks. But as security footage rolled — showing the
boy struggling with a malfunctioning vending machine right before sparks flew — the jury saw the
truth.

The fire was accidental. Caused by a short circuit and a bag of chips he never even got.

Verdict: not guilty. Just hungry.

You might also like