Jury Decision Analysis

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.

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 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.

Majority of the jury was not representative of the defendant’s peers. Most of them wanted to quickly vote guilty and punish the defendant. There were many exaggerations. Biases included where the defendant grew up, what race he was, and his age. In reality, a jury does their best to prove if the defendant is guilty or not because they are handing an individual’s life. There are biases in reality, but those are ruled out when picking out a jury. An example of groupthink in the film included when one juror, specifically the one who had a son, pressured everyone else to choose the verdict of guilty. He would ridicule those who did not agree with him. Another example of groupthink was when juror #8 threatened the juror with a son. He caused that

Today we are here to speak upon todays Jury system and how it can be improved or should we have it removed. Well I'm here to tell you my side. I think jury duty at this point should be eliminated and done for because its has more convicted, its random people you can say with no experience on handling a situation like this with a “criminal” they don't know how to assess the situation at hand like if you were to go with the bench, and also some of the jurors don't even pay attention to the case they are there because they have to. In the jury system there has been more cases than in the bench for the year 2010.

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

Juror 6 is the one that changed his mind during the second vote. Juror 6 is an old man who is a bit careful and a bit slow. However, he takes in opinions that appeal to him. When the jurors were discussing why the boy had clearly done it, five had passed and let six go. Six states, “I don’t know. I started to be convinced, you know, with the testimony from those people across the hall”(Rose 20). This clearly states that Juror 6 started to be convinced, but he wasn’t sure all the way. This is an important clue because this is in fact happening in the United States. The Presumption of Innocence is practiced in all U.S. courts, and it states that if one is not completely sure that the defendant is guilty, then they must declare him not-guilty.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.