Chapter 14 – Between the Lines and Laws
August 27, 1990 – Harvard Law School – Langdell Hall, Room C7 – 8:01 AM
The digital clock read 8:01 AM sharp when Logan entered room C7, a place reserved for advanced classes in Criminal Law. The architecture of the room was more austere than the regular rooms: tall windows, dark wood, the smell of leather from the old seats mixed with chalk and paper. The air seemed denser, more charged with expectation.
He chose a seat in the second row. In front of him, the blackboard already displayed the title of the first class, written in firm handwriting:
"Culpability, Intent, and Morality: The Limits of Criminal Law" – Prof. Julian M. Falk
Thomas sat next to Logan, adjusting his glasses on his face.
"Man… this Falk is that professor from the interview with the Boston Globe, remember? The one who said that "the American penal system is a machine for grinding humanity."
Logan smiled slightly.
"He's not entirely wrong."
"Maybe not. But I've heard he destroys students with questions. And he hates memorized answers."
"Perfect."
Thomas glanced sideways, suspicious.
"Are you taking this as a challenge?"
"Sure. Why not?"
Before Thomas could respond, the front door opened with controlled force. A tall man, with carefully combed-back gray hair and a tweed jacket, strode in. It was Julian Falk, without a doubt. His eyes, an almost translucent blue, swept the room like a spotlight. When they stopped on Logan, there was a moment of hesitation—or recognition?
"Good morning, students," he began, without sitting down. "My name is Julian Falk. I've been a prosecutor, a public defender, a federal consultant, and a legal reviewer in military courts. But none of that really matters now. What matters is what you can absorb, filter, and most of all question.
He paused.
"Here, in this course, you're not supposed to repeat formulas or follow scripts. You're supposed to think. Analyze. Confront."
He walked to the first desk and rested his hands on the back of the chair.
"Let's start with a case. In 1984, a 29-year-old man broke into his former boss's house, tied him up, tortured him, and killed him. When captured, he claimed to have been unfairly fired and exploited for years. He had no prior criminal history. No record of violence. An exemplary worker. But something clicked. The question I leave you with is: does this man deserve life in prison, the death penalty, or rehabilitation? And why?"
The silence was instantaneous. Logan sat up straighter in his chair.
"Moore," Falk said, without consulting the list of names. "You first."
Thomas gave his friend an "I told you so" look. Logan leaned forward a little. His voice was clear and firm.
"Professor, the question seems to me to require not only a legal analysis, but also a profoundly ethical one. From a legal standpoint, qualified homicide with torture usually carries the maximum penalty. But the lack of criminal history and the psychological context should at least raise the question of sanity and motivation."
Falk interrupted him with a gesture.
"Are you trying to soften the act based on a notion of emotional justice?"
"No. I'm trying to understand the crime as the result of a system of unequal relationships. The act is brutal. But what caused it cannot be ignored."
"So, Moore, are you saying that justice should be shaped by the social context of the criminal?"
Logan kept his gaze steady.
"I'm saying that criminal law, to be fair, cannot be blind to the suffering that precedes the crime. Otherwise, it becomes nothing more than a mechanism for revenge."
There was a second of silence. Falk didn't respond immediately. Instead, he turned to the board and wrote:
"Law as a tool of punishment or understanding?"
Then he turned back to the class.
"Very good, Moore. I don't agree with everything you said, but you started the class the way I like it: with a hard time."
A few students chuckled lightly. Logan just nodded, and felt the tension in his back ease. Thomas nudged his shoulder.
"Are you crazy? I would have fainted."
"It wasn't that bad," Logan replied, but inside his heart was pounding like he'd just run a marathon.
Chapter 15 – Voice of the Prosecution
October 6, 1990 – Harvard Law – Moot Court Room B – 7:38 a.m.
The suit was neatly pressed, but the collar of the shirt still insisted on looking disheveled. Logan stared at the mirror in the hallway bathroom, adjusting the knot of his dark blue tie for the third time. He took a deep breath. That feeling before moot court was always the same: firm but familiar tension, like the pressure in the seconds before a well-timed punch.
"If you keep pulling on that collar, it's going to rip," a voice said in the background.
Logan turned and saw Alicia Davenport, a classmate and part of the prosecution team. She looked impeccable: a gray blazer, hair tied in a neat bun, and a sharp gaze.
"Better than walking in with your collar askew," Logan replied with a half-smile.
"You're going to rock. Like always," Alicia said, more serious now. — But remember what we agreed on: objectivity, clarity, and focus on precedents. The panel is sharp today. Professor Falk will be one of the judges. And Professor Chung too.
— I know. I've reviewed the case about twelve times.
— Twelve? Logan, you're sick.
— Just compromised.
— Committed sick, then.
They laughed together for a second, then walked side by side toward Courtroom B.
7:55 a.m. – Moot Court Room B – Harvard
The room was almost full. Twenty seats in the gallery, occupied by students and a few professors. In front, the judges' bench, already with signs indicating the names:
Prof. Julian Falk
Prof. Helen Chung
Guest Judge: James Harwood, retired federal judge.
Logan paused for a moment, surveying the room with calculating eyes. He could smell the polished wood, the subtle hum of the air conditioning, the nervous rustling of leaves being rearranged by other participants.
The case was complex: a qualified homicide with aggravating circumstances of cruelty and premeditation, committed by a man who claimed self-defense in a situation of continuous threat. The fine line between self-preservation and justice by one's own hands.
The prosecution, led by Logan, needed to prove that the act was a cold-blooded murder — and not an act of desperation.
"All rise," announced the simulation supervisor. "The mock session of the Fourth Moot Court of Advanced Criminal Law will begin."
Logan took his place at the podium. The mock judge began the proceedings. In a few minutes, the opening presentation was authorized.
"Mr. Moore, you may begin the oral argument for the prosecution."
Logan stood up. He looked at the three judges for a moment. The room quieted. He took a deep breath, like a pianist before the first chord.
— Your Honor, good afternoon.
His voice was calm and firm. He commanded the courtroom effortlessly.
— Today we are faced with a case that, although it involves deep emotions, demands a cold, technical analysis, free from romanticism. The defendant, Mr. Jonathan Pierce, claims that he killed Mr. Nathan Hill after years of threats and psychological abuse. However, the facts show us a planned crime, executed with precision, and shrouded in cruelty.
He walked slowly, letting his eyes wander between the judges.
— The prosecution will present, based on the records, evidence that demonstrates premeditation: from the acquisition of the object used in the crime — a military knife purchased two days earlier — to intercepted messages that show the defendant studying the victim's routines.
Logan stopped. The pause was tactical.
— This is not a case of self-defense. It is a case of revenge. Cold. Calculated. And Criminal Law cannot be complicit with executions disguised as personal justice.
Alicia, sitting to his left, handed him the next folder with the documents. Logan continued his explanation with data, a chronology of events, case law, and a direct quote from a 1979 Massachusetts Court decision on the distinction between impulsive reaction and premeditated action.
For almost twenty minutes, he dominated the room. At one point, Professor Chung interrupted him:
"Mr. Moore, what about the medical records that indicate the defendant's emotional instability after years of abuse?"
Logan answered without hesitation.
"Yes, Your Honor, we acknowledge the records. But the prosecution emphasizes that even psychological pain does not justify the execution of another human being outside the legal scope. If we accept this argument without filtering, we will set dangerous precedents. Being a victim of violence does not grant authorization to kill."
Judge Harwood frowned slightly, as if analyzing something new. Falk, on the other hand, kept his hands clasped in front of his mouth, attentive.
08:42 – Technical Break – Participants' Lounge
Logan sat down, taking a sip of water. Alicia looked at him with a satisfied expression.
"You're killing it. Seriously." I think Judge Harwood almost nodded in approval at that moment.
"I hope so. But the defense is still going to come in strong."
Thomas, who was watching from the gallery, approached with a folded note. "You're steady. Focus. You need to end with something that will make an emotional impact."
Logan smiled as he read it. He put the note in his inside pocket.
"Are you ready for part two?" Alicia asked.
"More than ever."
New stories in my Patreon
New storie there: " Former CIA, Now LAPD "
This story is already complete there
[email protected]/SHADOWGHOST07
Just replace the @ with an a