Case Analysis : V. Williams

Later I asked secondary questions, which gave details of the events in question, the questions that I asked my witness was done so it could confirm the facts of the situation. Furthermore, I am not supposed to ask any leading questions (a question that contains the desired answer) because it the witness will either have to say “yes” or “no” to what the lawyer is asking. In this case there was circumstantial evidence, which showed that the accused is most likely the only one who could have committed the criminal offence due to the indirect evidence present, Tisi not wanting to go to jail when Dwayne pulls out a knife this is understandable for Dwayne’s character since he had been in and out with the police and since Tisi wanted to go to college he knew that he was going too far. Also when playing the role of the lawyer I was making sure that the witness’s testimony is credible (the fact or quality of being believable or reliable) by repeatedly asking to recall things that they heard or saw, if the witness is not able to repeat the same information it can weaken either side's case. Moreover, during jury selection both the defence and Crown have the ability to reject jurors with no specific reason (peremptory challenge), though this was not done in any of the mock trials in an actual law trial this would have happened. All in all, as a Crown attorney it was my job to represent society and have the burden of proving the guilt of the accused, opportunity to present evidence and question the other’s witnesses and can also reject prospective

Victor Daniel Williams an Aboriginal who was accused and charged of robbing a Victoria Pizza Parlor. He pleaded not guilty and claimed that someone else committed the crime and chose to have a trial by judge and jury. He feared that the potential jurors might be influenced with racial prejudice that might impair their decision. Hutchison J. who was the presiding trial judge granted his request and allowed the potential juror to be asked two questions.

The rest of the jury realized the boy’s race was not a fact of the matter. The condition the boy was raised was not completely certain but as the jury even walked through every witness’s perspective; they were attempting to be as realistic as possible. The 10th juror was a racist but his perspective was useful nonetheless by teaching a lesson. This responsible approach resulted from an impartial jury with different perspectives and in law reviews such as, “Diversity and the Civil Jury”; it is made clear just how legal and important impartial juries can be. “The right to an impartial jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community has mostly been expounded upon in the context of the Sixth Amendment's right to a jury trial in criminal cases, but has been applied to civil cases as well.’ In order to ensure that juries serve “as instruments of public justice,” this requirement is designed to create “a body truly representative of the community” (Carbone 840). America is very diverse so it makes sense that a jury should reflect such a mixed society and leave racism at the door.

4- The committee and Ms Beckel decided to include a religious studies curriculum in the program. The principal approved of it. However, Ms Wright one of the community members did not. She threatened to show up at the committee meeting with the media. On the day of the meeting, Ms Wright showed up with a placard protesting the use of the bible in public schools.

When thinking of a jury, there is a belief that everyone is fair when it comes to making the decision of whether the person being accused of the crime is guilty or not guilty because of the person’s race. What if this belief is not necessarily correct? There have been many instances in whether race has been a factor when the jury makes a decision. According to Baskin, Goldstein, and Sommers (2014), there has been enough evidence to show that racial biases influences the decisions of a jury. In this paper, the articles will show how jury decision-making is influenced by the offender’s race.

The adversarial nature of the Australian court system is fundamentally implemented to ensure a fair and impartial trial for members of the public, yet this is not always the case. Access to justice, and the courts themselves, are often perceived quite variably depending on an individual’s experience with such institutions. In particular, it is often the disadvantaged in our society, such as those from low socio-economic backgrounds, youth and Indigenous Australians, who are the most neglected and disheartened by fair access to the court systems. However, this is not to say that the system specifically works in favor of educated, white individuals. The systematic approach to court processes, consisting of the apparent impartiality of judges and trials by jury, often impede the natural course of justice and do not allow for a fair and unbiased trial.

During jury selection, potential jurors are interviewed then chosen or eliminated from the jury. The initial selection of potential jurors is completely random; citizens get “jury Duty” notices on a random basis. The screening of the jury selection is conducted by both the prosecution and the defense, and is overviewed by the judge on the case. During the interview, citizens are asked a number of strategic questions to ensure that they are not in any way bias for or against the defendant or case. The questions also eliminate those who have any connection to the case, in any way. It is during this interview that the lawyers on the case can voice their concerns regarding biased jurors.

Race is one of the most controversial topics when speaking of bias, and still to this day race is occasionally believed to sway the judicial system’s decisions. A recent statistic proved that less than 5 years ago in North Carolina more than 52% of potential black jurors were cut, or peremptory challenged, meaning they removed from a case without reason (S.M.). Not only do jurors experience discrimination but suspects on trial have also suffered for decades. Evidence shows judges sentence black convicts to 20%

In making her decision, Judge Sparks reiterated what every reasonable Canadian knows: racism exists in Canada and permeates the criminal justice system. There was no tangible proof of racism in this particular case, but none was required, as its presence can be taken for granted. However, the case was appealed, as the Crown alleged racial bias on the part of the trial judge.(3) Chief Justice Glube found that there was "reasonable apprehension of racial bias on the part of Judge Sparks" and ordered a new trial.(4) Glube's decision was upheld in this trial, and a further appeal resulted in the case being heard in the Supreme Court

During the New York summer of 1957 the play Twelve Angry Men is set in a small humid jury room. The playwright Reginald Rose through this play questions the reliability of current jury system. The jurors are instructed by the judge “to deliberate honestly ant thoughtfully”, as a result some take this instruction more seriously than others. A number of the jurors are able to take a logical stance, whilst other becomes emotionally involved in the issue. Uncertainty plays a vital role in creating doubt in the jurors minds. The contrasting perspectives of Juror 3 and Juror 8 make this very clear. Demonstrating quite evidently that despite the minority most are able to deliberate genuinely and with close considerations to the details of the trial.

Juries exists in the criminal trial to listen to the case presented to them and, as a third, non-bias party, decide beyond reasonable doubt if the accused is guilty. For the use of a trial by juror to be effective, no bias should exists in the jurors judgments, the jurors should understand clearly their role and key legal terms, and the jury system should represent the communities standards and views whilst upholding the rights of the accused and society and remain cost and time effective.

In support of this position, the government cited two decided decisions by the Court holding that the failure to object to a jury instruction is not controlling “for purposes of appellate review of the denial of a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict.” Rather, the question of whether a party is entitled to a directed verdict “depends upon the sufficiency of the evidence up to that point in the trial,” not of the content of jury instructions, which are “outside the scope of that analysis.”

There are many court cases that have had issues regarding an impartial trial and that has led to something called a Batson Challenge. A Batson Challenge is an objection to the validity of a peremptory challenge, on grounds that the other party used to exclude a potential juror based on race, ethnicity, or sex (www.law.cornell.edu/batsonchallenge). Three are three steps to a Batson Challenge. First, the defendant must show sufficient

Between this time and November 3rd 1994 the jury of 12 was selected out of a venire of 304 perspective jurors. All 304 perspective juror’s had a seventy five page questionnaire to complete to determine eligibility for the trial. Both the prosecuting and defending teams set out to present their case. The trial lasted 134 days in 1995 and is renowned for the media coverage from inside

Another major source of conflict is the other jurors’ disinterested approach to the trial. Almost every juror approaches Juror #8’s insistence on a not guilty vote with avoidance. They care little about the case and do not grasp its gravity,