John Forrest Case Summary

1495 Words6 Pages
John Forrest
First-Degree Murder
Trial court to Supreme Court
John Forrest felt that the jury had made multiple mistakes during his trial; therefore, leading him to appeal on those things as follow. Mr. Forrest felt that the jury instructions constitute reversible error and felt he deserved a new jury. It was denied by the courts concerning the issue that was given of malice. He also argued that the instructions given by the courts was inadequate and misleading because it failed to define the phrase, “just cause, excuse or justification thus improperly suggesting the exculpatory evidence did not negate malice or show heat of passion. Mr. Forrest also appealed that the trial court committed reversible error when it inquired into the
…show more content…
Did the jurors give incomplete instructions on malice?
Were the courts in any violations of violating Mr. Forrest rights?
Forrest felt that his 5th amendment was being violated, by due process
Forrest (appellant) felt that his charge was beyond what he really should have been given. He felt that the courts did not have any evidence that he premeditated or deliberate his actions. Therefore, believing the courts should reduce his charge to manslaughter. However, based on Forrest (appellant) statements during questioning, he gave enough evidence that he premeditated and deliberated all the actions he had done in this case. Forrest (appellant) also appealed multiple things within the courts and against the jurors. He appealed that the jury had made multiple mistakes during his trial, the jury instructions constitute reversible error and felt he deserved a new jury. Another appeal was that the instructions given by the courts was inadequate and misleading because it failed to define the phrase, “just cause, excuse or justification thus improperly suggesting the exculpatory evidence did not negate malice or show heat of passion. His last appeal was that the trial court committed reversible error when it inquired into the numerical division of the deliberating jury and when it subsequently instructed the jury about deliberating toward a verdict.

Holding:
The decision of the courts was to uphold the decision of the
Get Access