Write an opening statement. In this case you are defending Fidel Castro as a good revolutionary. 

Objectives
“The opening statement outlines the case it is intended to present. The attorney for plaintiff delivers the first opening statement and the defense follows with the second. A good opening statement should explain what the attorney plans to prove, how it will be proven; mention the burden of proof and applicable law; and present the events (facts) of the case in an orderly, easy to understand manner.” Mock Trial Material from State of Oregon v. Dulsa (2017-18 Season)
An opening statement is not an argument or a discussion of the law, but rather tells the jury what the evidence will show and serves as a road map for the jury to follow.  Objections by the opposing counsel are not permitted. 
What to know before drafting an opening statement
Can you tell a brief story about what happened from your side’s point of view?
What is your theory of the case?
What are the key elements that have to be proved (by you or the other side)?
What do you anticipate the evidence will show?
What are the important facts your side’s witnesses will testify to?
What themes (words and phrases that convey emotions) do you want to emphasize?
Who has the burden of proof and what is it?
What do you want the jury to do?
How much time do you have? (usually 5 minutes)
Anatomy of an opening: the basics
An Introduction:
Attorney identifies themself (or not)
A typical introduction: “Your Honor, members of the jury, my name is (full name), representing the prosecution/defendant in this case.”
If they have already been introduced,  some attorneys just go right into their opening to save time, create drama, and make it look more like a real trial.
A theory of the case
One or two sentences which tell the jury what your case is about
“My client, Landry Lopez, was fired for reporting an illegal activity to his employer, the restaurant Buddies Burgers.”
Briefly tell the jury why they are there
 “This case is brought under Oregon whistle blower law, which prohibits employers for retaliating against employees who have a reasonable belief that an illegal activity has occurred and report it. ” 
A brief overview (story) of what the evidence will show
Presented from your side’s perspective
Purpose is to give the jury the big picture 
“The facts of this case are straightforward.  The evidence will show that on May 5, 2016, Landry Lopez saw . . .”
A brief explanation of what has to be proved
“Under Oregon whistle blower law there are three elements that must be proven.   First . .”
Identify the witnesses 
“We will call three witnesses: Landry Lopez, Sam Jackson, a former Buddies Burgers employee, and Tyler Erickson, a journalist student.”
Tell what the key testimony of each witness will be
“Mr. Lopez will tell you that . . .”
“Next, Plaintiff will call Ms. Jackson, a former BB employee . . “.
“Finally you will the testimony of Tyler Erickson, who was with Mr. Lopez . . . “
A conclusion
Discuss the burden of proof  (some put this near the beginning)
“This is a civil case and Plaintiff Landry Lopez must prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence.” (Explain briefly and illustrate with hands what a preponderance of the evidence means)
Restate the theory of the case
“Oregon’s whistle blower law exists to protect, and encourage, employees to report illegal activity in the workplace. Mr. Lopez engaged in such whistle blower activity and was fired for doing so. “
Tell the jury what you want
“For these reasons, after you have heard all the evidence, at the end of this trial we will ask you to return a verdict in favor of Landry Lopez.”
“At the end of the trial the State of Oregon will ask you to find the Defendant guilty of . . . . .”
“Based on the evidence you will hear, at the end of the trial the Defendant will ask you to return a verdict of not guilty