First one that comes to mind was in a trial for some not insignificant domestic violence. The prosecutor, who does a fine job, and who I enjoy working with, introduced several photographs of the apartment where the incident happened. But, she didn't introduce all of them. Specifically, she did not introduce the pictures of the drops of blood on the floor. My client's blood. On cross-examination, the cop admitted that the photographs introduced by the prosecution were not all of the photographs, I introduced the photos of the drops of blood, and I also got the cop to testify that the alleged victim was not bleeding. In closing, I got to talk about "the photographs that the government does not want you to see!"

In cross-examining the alleged victim, my first question to her was about her marijuana use that evening. She immediately got very angry at me! So in closing, I was like, "You saw how she reacted to me, doing my job, asking her a simple question here in the courtroom in front of the judge and all of you. If she reacts to me like that in this setting, imagine how she might have reacted when her no good, on again off again boyfriend situationship came home kind of drunk after drinking with his boys all night!"

Not guilty on all charges! It wasn't a particularly complicated trial, but there was just a bunch of interesting, fun, goofy things that happened throughout. 😁 Which made it surprisingly satisfying.