Reasonable Doubt

 

Pudding Ingredients

 

One young child

A low-level shelf in the market

A distracted parent

An alleged candy bar

A crumpled and discarded wrapper

A chocolate grin

 

Ladies and gentleman of the jury, I ask you not to jump to a conclusion, but to simply examine that which is before you.  The players in this one act play are few.  The parent, with their mental list of chores and to-dos, pressured to not forget anything on their list.

 

The alleged candy bar, absent of guilt and yet bursting with temptation.  Colorful, available and taunting with its sweetness.

 

You’re familiar with the old saying, the proof of the pudding is in the tasting. Enter, if you will, the chocolate grin.  Was it present prior to the child entering the store? Aren’t all children perpetually sticky?  Is it fair to assume these chocolate smudges came from the candy bar in question? And what about this wrapper?  Is the remainder of this establishment clean?  How often is the floor swept?  Mopped?  Is there more than one employee on duty?  And where is the manager who supposedly oversees their activity?  Can we reasonably apply guilt to the child, simply based on his or her proximity to the event?

I would ask the judge’s indulgence and allow this jury to assemble in the parking lot and examine the backseat and door handles of the defendant’s vehicle.  If there is evidence of chocolate, then we must acquit and end this witch hunt.

 

 

The defense rests.