OPENING STATEMENT FOR DEFENDANT L.

SMITH May it please the Court, counsel, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, good morning. This is the case of a careless landlord who valued money more than safety. This is the

case of the careless landlord. She was careless because she failed to make numerous repairs after she received numerous complaints, and careless because she failed to consider the safety of her occupants.
L. Smith is a devoted mother of three children and a hardworking individual. Shes a single parent, and to make ends meet and provide the best for her children she works late nights, over 40 hours, 5 days a week. Working long hours and looking after three young boys is a tough job for anyone and extremely stressful. L. Smith certainly doesnt need any additional stress in her life, and it is unfortunately that her current living situation has only contributed to her problems. L. Smith entered into a lease agreement with her landlord, the plaintiff, and moved into her current household in March of last year. The house wasnt exactly in perfect condition when she moved in, but L. Smith was just excited to start fresh in her new home with her children. L. Smith spoke to the plaintiff several times regarding the conditions of the home, and was always reassured that the problems would be taken care of. However, to this very day those problems have not been corrected and L. Smith has had no other option but to live in this unpleasant and unsafe environment. Shes had to suffer through the summer hear with no air conditioner. The toilet in the bathroom is constantly overflowing. The electrical wiring has been a huge issue- a light in one of the bedrooms fell down, and one of the other light sockets is black as a result of an electrical short. Theres also a broken window in the kitchen, which allows flies and insects to get into the home. The heater in the living room is not properly vented and could potential result in a gas leakage. Theres been several other issues as well, some of which L. Smith has had to take care of herself and use money out of her own pocket for the repairs. Now as Ive mentioned before, L. Smith has made numerous attempts to speak with the plaintiff regarding these issues and give her enough time to make those repairs. But the plaintiff still has not corrected these problems. How long does L. Smith have to wait before some form of action is taken? Frustrated with the situation, L. Smith finally sent the plaintiff a letter on July 1st once again informing her of the poor living conditions and stating her intent to withhold her rent payments until some action is taken. On July 3rd, the plaintiff responded in a letter ????. A few days later, L. Smith contacted the Bloom County Department of Health Services to perform an investigation on the home. The sanitarian, Mr. Hatcher, found numerous violations and notified the plaintiff to carry out those repairs. After a few months in her new place, L. Smith recognized the need for some additional help around the house to take care of her children when she was at work. She hired J. May
The Plaintiff wants to evict Ms. Smith for something she did not do, for something that happened outside of her presence, for something that happened without her knowledge, and for something she had no good reason to know would happen. More specifically, the plaintiff wants you to evict Ms. Smith because her adult son, Henry Smith, allegedly possessed drugs in her apartment while she was at the mall with her two daughters. Ms. Smith's son visits her often because she is 65 years old, suffers from breast cancer, and undergoes chemotherapy treatments which sap

OPENING STATEMENT FOR DEFENDANT L. SMITH

her strength. He does not live with his mother, and he has not lived with her for quite some time. Henry is 34 years old. On September 19, he slept over at Ms. Smiths home. The next morning he and Ms. Smith left together and went their separate ways. Ms. Smith went to the mall to meet her daughters. While she was away, Henry apparently returned to her apartment where he was arrested for heroin possession. Ms. Smith will tell you that she knew that Henry was a former heroin addict, but she also knew that he had received treatment for his addiction at a clinic where he received methadone. Ms Smith thought that he had recovered from his addiction during the course of his treatment, so she had no idea he would bring heroin to her apartment. Now, no one is claiming that the heroin belonged to Ms. Smith. She lives alone and has never had any trouble with the law. The apartment where Ms. Smith lives is a public housing unit, so she pays a reduced rent based on her income. This subsidy runs with the apartment, so she will lose it if she is evicted. Ms. Smith does not know if Henry committed the crime for which he was arrested. If he is guilty, however, Ms. Smith had no idea he would commit this crime. Furthermore, Ms. Smith has never had any trouble with the law herself and she will testify that she does not tolerate any drug activity in her home. Because Ms. Smith had no idea her 34 year old son would possess drugs in her unit, I will be asking you to return a verdict in her favor, and to allow her to stay in the only housing she can afford. Thank you.