In Which I Deliver Closing Argument in the Case of “No Poop In There”

How did we get here? The defendant was outside on a beautiful spring Saturday morning. The sun was shining. The birds were chirping. The defendant was riding his balance bike, and I was loosely supervising him while scrolling Twitter.

After approximately two hours, I told the defendant, as his parent, it was time to go inside to get changed. He objected. “It will only take five minutes,” I said. “No,” was his reply.

Many of you have had occasion to deal with two year olds. I need not tell you what it is like. I tried to reason. I tried to bargain – candy was offered – but there was no persuading him.

I switched tactics and I confronted the defendant bluntly. “You need to be changed,” I said. He smiled and giggled. “No poop in there,” he claimed.

Again, I provided the defendant with a lawful command to go inside and get changed. “No get me,” he laughed and ran across the yard.

I gave chase. Try as he might, his short chubby legs were no match for mine and I was able to quickly apprehend him.

While I picked him up, what did the defendant do? Did he go willingly? No, he did not. He stopped giggling and began wailing loudly in my ear. “No!” he screamed. “No poop in there!” he screamed again. My eardrums nearly burst.

Then the kicking began. The defendant began pumping his little legs back and forth wildly while I held him out and tried to deflect the blows. Try as I might to restrain the wriggling defendant, he resisted.

And then it happened. He kicked me in the testicles. I nearly dropped him as I doubled over in pain.

As you know, the accused is on trial today for charges of perjury, resisting arrest, and assault. He would have you acquit and absolve him of any responsibility for his heinous crimes. But, I am confident you won’t be fooled by his charming smile and assertions.

The essence of his defense is, “No poop in there.” Since the defendant claims he had not soiled himself, he contends my orders and attempts to restrain him were unlawful. That he didn’t need to listen. That it was an accident when he kicked me. I submit to you the defendant is lying.

Let’s review the evidence:

First, I observed him clearly running his hand along the backside of his pants. In addition, whenever he did so he had a knowing expression on his face – a look that said, “There’s poop in there.”

Second, there was the sag. The seat of his pants was clearly hanging lower than it was a few hours before. A tell tale sign of poop in there.

Third, and most damning, was the stench. One could smell that kid from the next yard over. Even the dog was steering clear of the kid, and it sniffs other dogs’ butts to say hello.

This is all circumstantial evidence, of course. But the law makes no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence. There is only one conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence, ladies and gentlemen: There was poop in there.

It is easy to feel sympathy for the defendant and allow that sympathy to cloud your judgment. It is easy to believe his lies of “no poop in there” when looking at that cherub-like face, those blue eyes, and that blonde hair. It may seem harsh to find the defendant guilty when you consider the punishment – no TV for the day and no ice cream tonight – but it’s a necessary punishment. It’s necessary to hold the defendant accountable for his actions in order to deter this type of behavior in the future.

I am confident that you will all agree the evidence shows only one reasonable verdict: guilty on all counts.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s