Jury Decision Analysis

Well Juror #3 talked about his own son that we see the true reason for his bias against the boy. During the trial, Juror 3 talks about how he once saw his own son run away from a fight. I remember him saying " I told him (his son) right out," I'm going bust you up into little pieces for trying." When his son was 15 he him on the face. Which clears how that this guy has huge problems with kids not respecting their father. In my understanding each Juror brings their own life problems into that jury room. We can't control our emotions, we all are human and it's normal to express feelings. One juror was hurting badly leading him to act that way. He misses his son and is very disappointed in his son for such high disrespect towards his father.

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.

Finally, Juror 8 had a huge impact on this story. Juror 8 was very insightful with his opinions and evidence. He gave himself the ability to change the minds of eleven men and save the innocent life of one. Juror 8 was the only man out of 12 who decided to look deeply into the murder case and find little pieces of evidence that everyone else seemed to miss and used that to prove his points. For example, no one would have thought about how the woman who claimed she saw the murder from across the street may have not had perfect vision. Juror 8 found little details to prove that, like how she had marks from her glasses and may not have been wearing them when she looked outside. Not even the lawyers had thought about that and most little things like that were why the young boy was almost sent to his death. Juror 8 was a true hero and stood up to his own opinion and points even when others didn’t agree with him.

The jurors had come to value a case based on facts, not prejudice or stereotypes. Those who upheld this value (Juror 8 and the Juror 4) were respected and became leaders that were looked to for guidance. The jurors that maintained arguments based on stereotypes alienated themselves from the others.

In the United States, we let the people decide – not who the president will be, though. We let everyday people decide whether or not someone is guilty of a crime. The jury system has been around for ages (dating back hundreds of years in England) and probably will be for a long time. But is the system still working? Is it worth it? Should we continue to use juries to decide cases? The jury system shouldn’t remain an option because jurors tend to be incompetent, it’s not really worth the effort, and jurors aren’t professionally educated to decide on these cases.

An initial reading of A Jury of Her Peers suggests that the author focuses on the common stereotypes of women in the 1800s; however, a close reading reveals that the text also examines the idea that they are more capable than men may think. The fact that Mrs. Wright was able to pull off killing her husband by herself and without the men finding out proves that she is very capable and did not need the help of men to pull it off. The men at the time believed that women were incapable of doing things by themselves and thought that they should just stay in the kitchen, cook, and clean. They thought that they could not manage to do things that men could and did not trust them with a man's job.

Conflict between the US and Mexico began with Mexico's and Texas’s differences caused them to clash leaving to Texans’ war for independence from Mexico, which they gained in 1836. Texas then asked the US for annexation, which the US refuse the first two times, but them in 1845 the US annexed Texas. After the annexation of Texas Mexico and the United States had different perspectives, leading to the border dispute where US-Mexican troops fought, and hence that came to the US-Mexican war in 1845. This trial is meant to decide if America’s actions were honorable and justified, or if the United States used its power to manipulate Mexico. Based on all the evidence presented, the jury declared the US to be guilty on the charge of wrongfully provoking a war with Mexico.

In 2008, the murder of two-year old Caylee Anthony shocked the country. Arrested and put on trial for her murder was her mother Casey Anthony. Many people believed that she was guilty, and they were appalled when the jury found her not guilty. The jurors used the information presented to make their decision. As opposed to going with what everyone else believed (document

With jury bias we examined that the perspective taking, victim impact statements and race of the victim had no main effects with ps > 0.26 and no significant interactions either with ps > 0.64.

The jury selection process is a significant portion of the trial process. Jury selection ensures that courts maintain proper Due Process and comply with constitutional guidelines. Furthermore, it gives lawyers the ability to evaluate the people in the jury and determine how they would feel about the case. The trial process branches out into six steps: jury selection, opening statements, presentation of evidence, closing arguments, charging of the jury and deliberation of jury. Throughout the process of jury selection, potential jury is based on a process names an voir dire; otherwise known as committing to telling the truth. During voir dire, potential jurors are included in

A jury 's decision can be invalidated if it can be shown that a juror was biased. For this reason, a juror is not allowed to communicate with friends, relatives or members of the media about the trial. Such action would be a violation of the 7th Amendment.

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

Although, I’m not in agreement, but there should have been imprisonment for the accused so that no one takes the law in their hands. At no time, it justifies the killing of another human being. However, I can imagine what state of mind the father would be in if the men had done what they did to Carl Lee’s daughter, to one of their own children. The system is not always able to give justice to everyone, therefore, at times people take the law in their hand, which I would still condemn.

Rational and Irrational Arguments from the Jurors Susie Morel Opening: Throughout the story the jurors came up with reasonable arguments for their belief of guilt, some rational and other irrational. Old Man argument: Juror number nine pointed out that, the old man made a testimony. The old man said that he was in bed, heard the boy scream “I’m gonna kill you”, ran to the door and saw the kid run downstairs, all within fifteen seconds. Yet how is all that possible for a man who carried two canes and had two strokes within the past two years.

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