Judge Ricardo Sandoval Case Summary

Everyone was subjected to security including the lawyers and employees of the court house. Everyone was either in some type of uniform or dressed extremely formal, even if they were just spectators. Few people were in the court room, but not many. The judge, lawyers and people that were being represented had not still entered the building. Moments later the plaintiff, Dawn-Evans Donahue, and the defendant Joseph Donahue with their lawyers Michael Morris and John M. Makowski, entered the court room. They had taken their place on each of the court room to make their cases in front of the judge. The bailiff then told us to all rise for their entrance of Judge Polansky. We all rose and took our seats. The court had now been set in motion for deliberation. The judge was wearing the standard gown that is portrayed in films and in real life, there was no jury because this was not a trial court, this was a family matters case.

First, Juror 8 stood his ground. In the beginning the Foreman called for a vote and eleven men raised their hand for guilty while Juror 8 raised his hand for not guilty. “There were eleven votes for guilty. It's not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.” said Juror 8 for justifying his actions. Later, when the other jurors were trying to convince Juror 8, he was quick with his arguments. To Juror 2 he said, “Nobody has to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn’t have to open his mouth. That’s in the constitution. You’ve heard of it.” To Juror 10 he said, “You don’t believe the boy. How come you believe the woman? She’s one of “them” too, isn’t she?” When Juror 6 brought up the motive for the murder, Juror 8 remarked with, “…I

While the courtroom was relatively small in size, the front of the room featured a table for the prosecution team, along with two separate podiums, stationed just before the judge’s bench. The room also featured a juror’s box; however, no jury was present for the duration of Tran’s court session. To the viewer’s right of the judge’s bench, a team of court officials were seated, while a witness stand was positioned to the viewer’s left of the judge’s bench. Two bailiffs were positioned to both the left and right of the judge’s bench. In the empty juror’s box, additional court officials, including law enforcement officers, were

As a result, all the jurors excluding the foreman move to the window. After realizing that no one is paying attention, he exclaims, "Listen to me! What are you doing? I'm trying to tell you something" (60).

(Rose 72). Juror Eight has already analyzed Juror Three’s defensive behavior and

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

The jurors trust Wilds. One of the jurors Armstrong said that she views Wilds as the person one would go to, if one gets into trouble, and therefore she believed that Wild’s story was realistic, and the truth. Additionally, Wilds was dressed in a tie, sometimes a jacket and appears very confident at trial (“The Deal With Jay”). What Wilds says sounds plausible, and after Wilds speaks possibly the jury is ready to convict Syed and in order for the jurors to not convict Syed the defense attorney must do an excellent job, to compete against the jurors’ belief that they already developed. As when jurors come to an initial conclusion at trial, because they do not like uncertainty they try to find proof for their theory, and often go with their initial theory, unless there is overwhelming evidence to switch teams (Finkelman, 47-48).

It was very intriguing to see the finally results of voir dire, peremptory challenges, and the numerous other aspects that go into jury selection. The jury consisted of seven women, five males, and was predominantly Caucasian past their forties. Which for a fifty-eight-year-old Latino male, this was far from a representation of Jerry Olmeda’s peers. Aside from the gender, age and race gap the jury didn’t seem to emotionally invested or interested in the case until accounts of assault came up. Up until the daughter’s testimony, and showing of Andrea’s account of the sexual assaults she encountered, most of the jury just stared blankly at the court proceedings. But as soon as the recording started, you could see the jurors started to take notes and become more

Juror 4 is able to remain calm and composed throughout the most stressful of situations. While Juror 10 exhibits racial outbursts; “They get drunk”, “That's the way they are!”, “VIOLENT!”, “These people are dangerous. They're wild. Listen to me. Listen.” Juror 4 sat through this entire scene without saying a word. It is only until Juror 10’s monologue is finished that Juror 4 speaks, calmly asking Juror 10 to “Shut [his] filthy mouth.” Juror 4 never discredits or implies anything towards the defendant and is always careful of what he says. After Juror 10’s tirade, Juror 4 tries to soften the impact created by 10; “Slums are potential breeding grounds for criminals.” He never attacks or hypes the situation at hand. He draws around ‘potential’ possibilities. Juror 4 initially had his doubts at the start of the case but was the only character that overcame his predisposition based on the analysis of facts and evidence. Rose’s character and only this character had the intelligence, confidence and persistence to keep his head in the tense moment Juror 10 created.

Courtrooms never looked so big on the inside; the building itself looked pretty small, and given the amount of doors lining the walls, if all of the courtrooms looked like this it would be a sight to see them all come together. Regardless, Bedhead sat down in one of the empty jury seats, fixed her hair, and waited. More and more jurors began to emerge from the outside halls; one even asked if he was in the right room. She assured him he was.

Slowly Fonda begins to turn them round with the aid of a few other jurors who use their knowledge, previous experiences and reason as stimulus for doubt. In this is essay I will be discussing emotion, reason and sense

“Witness for the Prosecution” superbly demonstrated a realist view of the operating procedures in a courtroom. The actors within the courtroom were easy to identify, and the steps transitioned smoothly from the arrest to the reading of the verdict. The murder trial of Leonard Vole provided realistic insight into how laws on the books are used in courtroom proceedings. With the inferior elements noted, the superior element of the court system in “Witness

For Michael, the experience will be surreal. He will essentially be watching his original trial replayed, featuring evidence that his jury never heard, with another man sitting behind the defense table. In recent court appearances, Norwood has appeared unkempt, his dark, greasy hair pulled back into a ponytail, his expression blasé as he surveys the bank of TV cameras in the courtroom. (Because of publicity surrounding the case, the trial has been moved to San Angelo on a change of venue.) “I won’t do anything to jeopardize the trial, of course,” Michael told me, “but I’ve wondered if I will be able to control myself when I see him face-to-face.” Yet Michael has already shown Norwood mercy. At his request, as well as that of the entire Kirkpatrick family, Tanner will not seek a death sentence.

He then asked them if they know any of those whose names were mentioned. This is to ascertain the fact that the jury should be fair and just. He also told the jury not to discuss the case with anyone outside of the court room not only because of the case but the fact that the jury must be independent at all

The defendant’s tardiness, as well as his demeanor-very nonchalant- in court, made him appear to be unconcerned with the fact that he was on trial. At one point I thought he was going to fall asleep. This definitely had an impact on his impression on the jurors as they did not seem happy with his behavior and neither was the judge.