A trial can be deemed unfair if the jury is swayed by emotions. Strong emotions such as prejudice, disgust, confusion, vengeance and stubbornness can affect the outcome of a case. If emotions change the outcome rather than actual evidence presented to the jury, the trial will be unfair to the defendant. To point out, many people believed that Damien Echols was guilty because he dressed and acted differently than everyone else. He was a target for prejudice. As Tom Waits said “The worst things you can be in the justice system are being poor and different, and these boys were both.” Echols considered himself as a Wiccan which was not normal at the time, he also read books that were said to be satanic. All of the boys were of poor families. But unlike rich people, they cannot pay their way out of prison. It was mentioned that the boys were called “white trash”. Echols said that they would be thrown in jail and forgotten because they were no one important. Another point is that John Fogleman tried to make the jury feel a sense of disgust with Damien Echols about keeping a dog’s skull in his room. As a side note many people in Arkansas keep the heads of deer and mount them on the wall as a trophy. Keeping a dog’s skull should not be too uncommon. The jurors seemed to completely mark the parents off the list of suspects. They …show more content…
Jessie stated that he was repeating what Gary Gitchell said so that the questioning would end. But there were many imperfections in Misskelley's “confession”. During the trial Gitchell dismissed it as confusion when Jessie said the boys were tied up with rope. After Jessie was taken to jail after the trial he later stated that he did not commit the murders, that he only wanted the questioning to stop. If the courts are willing to go along with false confessions then more innocent people will be imprisoned while the real offender is
However when it is time to deliberate and come to an important verdict, these same people have a hard time making impartial and fair decisions because the many prior misconceptions that they possess. It is impossible for anyone to be completely impartial and fair, especially with inadequate knowledge of the law. It can take only one partial, and unfair person to change the whole outcome of the verdict.
This caused many rallies, riots, peaceful protest. This case informs us now because it also tells us how bad they were treated back then, the people believed the girls because they were white, and mostly overlooked the boys because they were black. So to end this long unfair trial, they were cleared.The latter mentioned in the book To kill a Mockingbird, by author Harper lee.
You're not gonna tell me you believe that phony story about losing the knife, and that business about being at the movies. Look, you know how these people lie! It's born in them! I mean what the heck? I don't even have to tell you. They don't know what the truth is! And lemme tell you, they don't need any real big reason to kill someone, either! No sir! [Juror 10, page 51] This type of prejudice offended many of the other jurors, especially Juror 5 who is of similar race to the accused.
April 6, 1931, the trials for the Scottsboro boys begin(Uschan 16). The boys were represented by Milo C. Moody and Stephen Roddy who were only given twelve days to prepare for the trials. Stephen was and unpaid, unprepared real estate attorney, and Milo was a forgetful seventy year old local attorney who hadn’t tried a case in a long time (“San Marcos” line 13). The trails were completely unorganized and false information was stated throughout the whole thing. The cross examination of Victoria Price lasted minutes and the defense offered very little information to the judge. Six out of the nine boys ended up denying the rape while 3 admitted to it. Even though the three men didn’t rape the women, because of beatings and threats, they admitted to the gang rape. By the time the trail had ended 8 out of the 9 boys were convicted and sentenced to death. Since one of the Scottsboro boys was only thirteen, he was considered too young to be tried as an adult (“UMKC” par. 6-7).
Inside a room where life or death decisions are made, twelve men sit with wandering thoughts. The made up minds of some jurors are to send a boy to his death without a second thought, but one other juror may change that. Inside of the play Twelve Angry Men written by Reginald Rose, Juror 8 has the persuasive evidence to change the minds of his fellow Jurors and save a boy from his execution. The other Juror’s seem like they won’t budge with their mind set on the decision of guilty, but after Juror 8 proves his thoughts on the decision of innocent, he may just be able to save a young life.
Capital Punishment is an issue that has been argued over from the dinner table in
Every day people are convicted of crimes or arrested for other reasons. Once they are convicted they are summoned to court, this begins the jury process. Citizens are randomly chosen to serve on jury duty. The citizens on the jury will use the jury system to determine if the person being accused is guilty or innocent. Trials can become very long or they can be short it just depends on the topic and how long it takes to decide on what the consequences will be. The jury system is the main trial and the main decision of whether or not someone is right or wrong.
Jury nullification is when a jury acquits a defendant who it believes is guilty of the crime he is charged (Hickey, 2010. p. 370). This is because the jury chose to ignore the facts of the case and the judge instructions, and based his or her decision on personal opinion. If we are going to allow jury nullification we may as well not take up the tax-payer’s money to even take it to trial. Nullification – The act of making a law null and void (nullifying). For example, during prohibition, many juries found defendants innocent, even when the state had proven its case, because they did not think the law should exist. State legislatures also have nullified federal laws within their borders, creating a nullification crisis for the federal
During the early nineteen hundreds many people especially in the south were often convicted of crimes for no other reason than their skin color and contrary to many ideas about our court system, we have not always been the most honest and unbiased people. One prime example of this is the case of the Scottsboro Boys and how they were accused of rape and had to go to court numerous times, almost everytime ending in the death sentence. The evidence in the case clearly points towards the innocence of the Scottsboro boys, evidence such as unclear stories from the girls, lack of bruises and marks indicating assault as well as a previous history of prostitution from both of the girls. This evidence helps to prove that Charles Weems and the Scottsboro boys were innocent and wrongly accused and convicted.
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.
On October 16th in Mississippi a teenager was burned to death. The suspected person was a 29 year old man named Quinton Tellis. If persecuted he would be faced with life in prison. The verdict was a hung jury. The jury consisted of 6 African Americans and 6 white jurors. The jury had some confusion and after a retry with the poll of votes they couldn’t come up with verdict. The teenager's name was Jessica chambers. She died on December 6th due to the 3rd degree burns all over her body. During the trial eight persons on site testified that she said "Eric set me on fire". There was debates on what she meant to say. The way they found out is that they tracked Quinton's phone records. He had deleted all conversations with her but had been talking
the prisoners were lucky enough to escape the being lynched when they were moved into Scottsboro. In this trial, nine young, black boys were charged with the rape of two white girls while on a train. This case was a major source of controversy in the 1930’s. “Despite testimony by doctors who had examined the women that no rape had occurred, the all- white jury convicted the nine, and all but the youngest, who was 12 years old were sentenced to death” (“Scottsboro”). The boys’ lawyer, Samuel Leibowitz, did not even get assigned to the case until the first day of the trial. “If he could show a jury that these nine boys were innocent, as the record indicated, the jury would surely free them. To Leibowitz, that was simple!” (Chalmers 35). However, it was not that simple. Many white citizens would not change their minds about
Any jury trial is bound to have some sort of conflict involved when coming to a verdict. The portrayal of a murder case in the movie, 12 Angry Men, involves many different examples of conflict, as well as the approaches to conflict used by different characters. Almost every conversation in the film involves conflict, since the characters are all debating whether or not the boy being tried for murder is guilty or not, but there are a few scenes in which different types of conflict and different approaches to conflict seem to stand out.
Justice Evatt delivered a paper to the Australian Legal Convention which entitled “The Jury System in Australia” in 1936 . Justice Evatt’s thesis of Jury trials was that “in modern day society the jury system is regarded as an essential feature of real democracy”. Jury trials in the nineteenth century were found way before in four colonies Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia . When Trial by Judge alone was first introduced in South Australian thirty eight were held in the Supreme Court between 1989 and 1993, meaning all annual percentage of all criminal trials in the court ranged between 3.9% and 8.9% . The Juries Act SA 1927 was amended many times making some major changes. In 1966, women were introduced in the South Australian Jury system as only men were capable of serving on Juries. An increase to the number of jurors available to contribute in a criminal trial was amended in 2004 . It now states in the Juries Act 1927 under section 6A that if court agrees there are good reasons to add additional jurors of 2 or 3 it can be empanelled for a criminal trial .
The Selection and Role of a Jury in a Criminal Trial This assignment focuses on how a jury is selected and its role in a