Introduction “The Cask of Amontillado” was written in 1847, and different scholars across the globe have since analyzed it. It is a story that leaves the audience in suspense, and the readers are unable to know what happened with the cask of amontillado. The main characters are Montresor and Fortunato, and the two have different personalities. The former is full of vengeance, and he wants to revenge on his friend Fortunato who is unaware of the offense. Based on the story, different narratives can be drawn from it as lawyers and juries. The Prosecuting Attorney’s Closing Argument Montresor is guilty as charged because of his actions both before and during the act. He had the choice to let Fortunato live, but, instead, he chose to take the law by himself and killed an innocent soul. Fortunato was already drunk and unable to make a rational decision, yet he intentionally lured him into a death trap that was well organized. Because of this, no amount of punishment can warranty his action, and he deserves to face the law. Justice must be served, and it must prevail through appropriate punishment. There were legal mechanisms he could have pursued in case he felt he was wronged. However, he decided to kill an innocent man who regarded him as a friend. The Defense Attorney’s Closing Argument Regrettably, Fortunato had to die in the manner he did. Consequently, his family was going through the pain and loss of their loved ones. However, no evidence shows that Montresor was linked to his death. Fortunato was already drunk by the time he was led to the cask of amontillado (Poe, 1847). Moreover, he tried to warn him of proceeding with the journey to where the wine was placed. Fortunato insisted, and there was nothing else Montressor would do than to guide him through the catacombs. Moreover, he never forced him to enter the dangerous place where the fine amontillado was kept. Fortunato himself made this decision, and no amount of pleading would stop him. Therefore, Montresor is innocent, and Fortunato’s actions led to his untimely death. The Jury’s Final Verdict Having considered all the facts presented, Fortunato took himself to the place where he was killed. It seems he was obsessed with tasting amontillado without considering the dangerous warnings Montresor had given him. He continued to drink the wine he was given along the way by Montresor, which impaired his reasoning. However, Montresor had been planning to revenge on Fortunato for an extended period. He deceived his friend that he had amontillado wine, and he could lead him to where it was stored. He had visited the place before and even arranged the stones that he would use to kill Fortunato if he managed to lure him. Therefore, he intentionally committed the crime, and he had to be sentenced. Succinctly, the jury agrees with the attorney’s arguments because of the evidence available. The party involved in the death of Fortunato was sober and had been planning his actions for a long time. He perfectly lured his victim to the execution place and killed him. The stones used to build a wall that trapped the victim were taken to the scene with a purpose. Therefore, the suspect was found guilty of the murder and was sentenced to s