Abstract
This Essay explores the form and substance of the Williams and Watson legal teams' diminished capacity defense. Strictly construed, the defense neither exculpates nor excuses Williams and Watson's lawbreaking acts. Rather, the defense explains such acts in the racial context of their commission, thereby mitigating claims of retributive punishment. Taking this explanation as a starting point, the Essay begins a larger project studying the historical intersection of race, lawyers, and ethics in the context of the American criminal justice system, specifically in cases of racial violence. Given the breadth of law and jurisprudence on the subject of racial violence, I confine the scope of the project to cases involving private acts of criminal violence motivated by racial difference, such as black-on-white or white-on-black violence. My purpose is to investigate the rhetoric of race or "race-talk" in criminal defense advocacy and ethics dealing with racially motivated private violence. By race-talk, I mean both the colorblind and the color-coded narratives heard in courtrooms and law offices. Out of these settings emerge racialized stories, that is, stories that appear facially neutral but inflict invidious injury.
