How To Prove Mr Bauumer's Loss Of Innocence

As the prosecutor, Petrocelli shows the jury that a man is dead because of Steve Harmon and James King. Petrocelli wants to put both King and Steve behind bars, and to do so, she shows the jury that Steve was a part of the plan. Petrocelli already thinks Steve and King are guilty and that they participated in the act of the robbery. When Petrocelli bring up her first arguments to prove Steve guilty, she says, “But there is no doubt in my mind, and I believe by the end of the trial there will be little doubt in yours, that these 2 men, James King and Steven Harmon, were all part of the robbery that caused the death of Alguinaldo Nesbitt” (25). There isn’t clear evidence Steve committed the crime; Petrocelli wants the jury to know that he volunteered to commit theses acts.

The old man gave evidence that he heard the boy say “I’ll kill you” from his apartment below and that he saw the boy running from the down the stairs from the apartment after rising from his bedroom. The old lady saw the boy kill his father through her window, whilst a train was passing. Juror #8 analyses each of these points and makes credible arguments that the conclusion is flawed based on incorrect reasoning, by pointing out inconsistencies in the conclusions reached. The other jurors are content to believe that their reasoning is solid, as they have used examples of deductive reasoning to reach their conclusion. Juror #3 gives his reasons for reaching the conclusion that “It’s quite clear that the boy never went to the movies that night, returned home and killed his father with the knife as identified in Court” (Fonda & Lumet, 1957). Until Juror #8 takes out a similar knife and poses the question that it was possible that another knife was used, Juror #7 calls it a million to one however Juror #8 persists in saying it was possible. He also uses this analysis method to cast aspersions on the second point and third points raised by systematically analyzing each component.

To begin, the first significant example for proving that Skidmore is guilty is that he was the only person that didn't like Manchester. Skidmore has a burning hatred for his brother, some people could say he is jealous due to everyone's love for him. In the excerpt, 'The Curse of the Poisoned Pretzel', it states, "Everyone loved Boddlebrooks. Everyone, that is, except his younger brother, Skidmore" by this statement it simply proves that he is the only person that could possibly hate his brother enough to commit such an action to poison such a loving and caring guy. No one else could have possibly done the crime except Skidmore, this is a prime example on why people believe he is guilty. Everyone

The prosecution’s case relies on proving that Blyton was not acting in self-defence and that he made a conscious decision to kill his father. This argument is supported partially by the fact that when Blyton was rushed, Livingstone no longer had possession of the knife that made his initial assault threatening. Furthermore, Blyton gave 6 other versions of the event to various people which do not mention that he was acting in

Mr. Montresor, A man who, supposedly, is the alleged murderer of Mr. Fortunato, a respected man, will now be prosecuted for his actions.

Bargains” There has been a suspected murder in the town of Moondance, Montana. This murder by Mr. Baumer and of Mr. Slade, however, is only a suspected murder. Investigation of this case shows that Mr. Baumer is indeed guilty because he is bullied by Mr. Slade, shows suspicious actions, and speaks suspiciously. First of all, Mr. Baumer is bullied and abused by Mr. Slade, giving enough reason that Mr. Baumer should get revenge. In page 1, 7, and 7 of A.B. Guthrie’s ‘Bargain” There is clearly evidence of both physical and verbal abuse of Mr. Baumer.

In Mr. Baumer's defense, he is not guilty of Slade's death. Slade drank wood alcohol and he couldn't read. It is Slade's own fault. Slade should have acknowledged to read so he wouldn't have died. Slade took his own risk at drinking it.Mr Baumer could have gave it to him to poison other things to get rid of them. He also could have gave it to him to do other things. Slade and Mr. Baumer had feuds, Slade always hurt Mr. Baumer. Slade was a bully to everyone and never paid for anything. Slade cherished alcohol and he couldn't read. It led to the event in the book that Slade drank wood alcohol and died from it. Wood alcohol is very poisonous. Slade deserved his punishment.

14 year old Johnny Cade has killed young Bob. The verdict should be charged not guilty. The other fellow Jury members and myself believe the same. To prove this matter, we have collected data. This data reveals that it was a justified homicide.

It must be very disappointing to take blame for something you did not do. In the play " Twelve Angry Men " by Reginald Rose, act one, most of the jurors said their statements without enough evidence and almost sentenced the kid guilty. Later on, the jurors change their minds because of the evidence presented to them. Therefore, the author shows you should not go along with what you hear without proof.

Then, the thing is you could argue that Lizzie Borden is not guilty because Dr. Handy stated “ I saw a medium-sized young man of a very pale face complexion, with his eyes, fixed on the sidewalk. He was passing slowly towards the south. He was paler than common, and acting strangely (1).” This had happened near 92 second street around the Borden’s house, the time of the murder. You can also say that Lizzie Borden is not guilty because there is not a spot of blood or a weapon that they have connected to

Also during this storming process, Juror #8 was aware of all the opposition he was facing with his not guilty vote, and realized he needed to take the role of taking charge in opening up dialog to discuss the case. In this power struggle, he influenced some of the other Jury members by bargaining. Bargaining is a tool used to offer an exchange. He used this tool to convince others to discuss the case by giving them a choice. He presented them with a 2nd vote in which he would exclude himself from, and if all remaining voters still believe the boy is guilty of murder, he would conform to the mass vote, end the case and send the boy to the electric chair. But if not, they will take more time to deliberate and open a genuine discussion of the case. The 2nd vote turned Juror #9’s vote from guilty to not guilty, and Juror #8 was successful in his bargaining

“Was Lizzie Borden Really Innocent” The number of kids that kill their parents is unbelievable. They usually have a motive. Lizzie Borden didn’t.

Several pairs of eyes trail the prosecutor as he puts forth his reasons as to why the defendant should be guilty. Several pairs of ears listen intently in a trance like mode, also cautious of every detail. The prosecutor presents the facts with great gusto, painting a picture of the defendant in a bad light. Once he is done, the defendant’s lawyer takes the stage and he too, with great effort, puts forth reasons as to why his client is innocent. In the end, when everything is said and done and it time for the verdict, only one voice answers to the court clerk out of the 12 men and women. These 12 people are the jurymen and they play an equally important role as the lawyers and judges of a court trial. In fact, a jury is the sole decider, based

In order for a trial to be brought, the police and prosecutors might be able to prove that the elements of the particular offence are present. In this criminal case both Actus reus, Mens rea as well causation was clearly shown through the behavior of Katherine Knight.

The accusations against him, brought by Briony Tallis, held him responsible for the violation of her cousin Lola. Robbie reflects on this, as Briony plans to refute her statement to the police, “The intricacies were lost to him, the urgency had died. Briony would change her evidence, she would rewrite the past so that the guilty became the innocent. But what was guilt these days? It was cheap. Everyone was guilty, and no one was. No one would be redeemed by a change of evidence, for there weren’t enough people… to…gather in the facts.” (188) Robbie’s loss of security and his future took away the childlike carefreeness he displayed before the accusation. Briony’s conscience weighs heavily on her as she moves from a naïve implication to the realization of the consequences.