will become clear in the interview video. It was then time for Jorge’s attorneys to go before the jury, and he stood when the prosecutor took her seat. To begin to believe the defense given by Jorge’s attorney was powerful or persuasive is giving it too much credit. In my opinion the structure and delivery of all of his points that I will describe only further supported the opposing sides arguments. He began his statements by saying everything was misconstrued and was simply a misunderstanding given by the child. He then went on to describe the roommate (taking blame from Jorge) and how it was their fault for not speaking up about any awkward situations that may have arisen in the past. He invested time talking about the ‘rules of the house’ …show more content…
The prosecutor began to ask her basic questions, like how she was feeling and her favorite things to do. Rosa answered easily and did not seem very nervous with this. Then the prosecutor asked her if she knew why she was here, and if she knew which man in the room was Jorge. Rosa quickly pointed in the direction of Jorge, without looking directly at him or speaking. It was at this point the video was going to be introduced to the jury, and small briefings were handed out by the deputy to clarify more of the video. The video began by showing a small room with a table in the middle. It looked like an interrogation room from any popular crime scene show. Very soon after an interviewer walked in with Rosa, who was only seven years old. The interview began by asking Rosa her favorite things to do and how she felt, almost identical to how she was asked when she first walked in the courtroom. The questions then became more serious as the interviewer asked why Rosa felt scared when she was with Jorge, and what had happened in the past that made her scared of …show more content…
The process of the various statements given and the ability to convey such a strong message to the jury is the job of the attorney. In my open opinion, the evidence and statements given could not be outweighed by Jorge’s attorney in any way. This was aided by the fact that he was not able to support his arguments and all odds were against him. The courts system of relaying evidence to the jury and giving the people a right to choose what they honestly believe to be the truth of the situation is what todays judicial system is based upon. This was enlightening to me to see happen and I am content with what I have witnessed. Following this case, I was able to find two more that were similar in nature. The first being People v. Dontanville 10 Cal. App. 3d 783; 89 Cal. Rptr. 172; 1970 Cal. App. LEXIS
As both parties finish agreeing upon which jury members are to hear their case, the prosecutor stands up to hear and begins question their first eyewitness, Lester Wade on the stand. The prosecutor asks Mr. Wade to say and describe exactly what he saw on the night of the break-in at the pool room. Wade says everything he saw, he first says that he saw Wade come out of the pool room with a pint of wine, go to the telephone booth and
Some could argue that this case illustrates the failure of the jury system. Despite all the evidence pointing to the guilt of the defendant,
For this essay I asked my Grandma Diane questions about jury duty. She has never served on a jury but she has been summonsed to questioning to possibly be on one. When she got the summons letter she wasn’t excited, “ I didn’t want to do it, because I didn’t feel that I [had] the right to judge anyone else,” and didn’t really want to go. She got asked questions like, “Could you be impartial? Could you be fair? If “this” happened would you say that the person is guilty? Are you related to the person/persons involved? Have you heard anything about the case?,” the attorneys asked these questions because they wanted to make sure they had a jury that would make an unbiased decision in the court case. My grandma said that, “It made [her] respect what
Valdez had an I.Q of an seven year old does not vouch for anything. For the fact a lot of seven year olds know that this type of activity is not good at all. Also saying that he was drunk made him do what he did. That is totally Mr. Valdez issue because, he is grown and has to take upon account for his actions. I also have to add that Mr. Valdez had to be up to something. He walked into Ms. Wilson home without permission, he had a knife, and some how the situation ended with him getting charged with rape. So that lead me to believe that the jury looked at it as he had a knife, and he tried to have intercourse with her. If he wasn't trying to bring harm to Ms. Wilson what was the knife for. I could ask a million questions, but I can truly say I am on the fence. Without more information I do not know what to feel or think, but if I had to go with one way or the other I wouldn't had gave him rape. Also did they process a rape kit on her, was there evidence besides him being drunk, having a knife, and her statement. Even though I feel that Mr. Valdez shouldn't had received that charge; I can sort of see why the jurors did what they did as
To begin, Adnan had a terrible lawyer. One year after Adnan’s trial, his attorney Cristina Gutierrez was disbarred, and $282,000 dollars were awarded to past clients she’d wronged with her shoddy legal skills. Not only did Gutierrez never challenge the state’s sketchy phone records, she never even contacted Asia McClain, a potential alibi witness for Adnan. Later, Gutierrez’s associate William Kanwisher signed an affidavit stating that she didn’t necessarily make a “strategic decision not to interview and/or call as a witness Asia McClain”. In other words, someone who knew Gutierrez extremely well at the time is admitting that she didn’t have a master plan formulated, she simply forgot about a potentially essential part of her client’s defense.
During that statement, he is also the first one of the jurors to say an expletive, being more casual than he truly should be even though they are dealing with a life or death situation. Even though Juror 7 did highlight some flaws in the jury system, he also inadvertently brought up a helpful point in the case. He stated, “Are we supposed to believe that he didn’t get up and run to his door and see the kid tearing down the stairs fifteen seconds after the killing?” (Rose 42). After hearing this
The 8th juror says, “I started to feel that the defence counsel wasn’t doing his job. He let too many things go. Little things.” (13).
Juries are embedded in the foundation of America. Preceding the revolution, trials were dictated solely by judges, which led to flawed rulings. After numerous taxes were passed in court in the colonist’s favor, the American Revolution had its start, and would continue until the United States became a recognized nation. In this nation, a right to trial by jury was granted and protected by the Constitution. The significance of this decision is seen in the courtroom, where the people’s vote is what stands between the government.
The news is riddled with salacious stories about the criminal activities across the nation. It can seem like these events are taking place in another world, very far from your own. But when you find yourself being charged with a criminal act, the situation hits much closer to home, literally. There is a great amount of detail and skill involved in successfully telling your side of the story to the judge and the jury. Though some defendants choose to represent themselves at trial, this is never recommended! Your defense attorney should provide the court with a biased version of your story, meaning they should present you in a good light, emphasize the events that will lessen the chances of you being found guilty, and make the jury see you as someone who is innocent.
This case was one of truth and justice. It becomes evident when the Juror 9 says to Juror 10. Do you think you have a monopoly on truth?' [Juror 9, page 8] The fact is, nobody really knows what the truth is, and at the end of the play, still nobody does. The boy may have been guilty, but as Juror 8 pointed out, who were they to make that assumption? Most of the Jurors had taken for granted that what the prosecution had told them was the truth. Through much discussion the Jurors realised that this may
who was set on convicting her, quizzed her in the courtroom about the details that surrounded
Since the series revolves around real life events that occurred, it is quite accurate how the criminal justice is represented. In the series, we see everything that we would see in the criminal justice field, for instance the courtroom actors such as the judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, bailiffs, courtroom clerk, and jury. Everyone in the O.J. Simpson was important and they all received more attention than they should have, but the ones who got the most attention and had the biggest role in this case was the jury. Jury selection is selected from the eligible population over the age of 18 who has complied from the DMV. There is a voir dire that process by which jury members are selected, attorneys and judge seek to gain information about
Trial by jury can be traced back to the 12th Century and has been an integral part of the criminal justice system since Henry II favoured it over trial by ordeal (Davies, Croall and Tyrer 2010, p.311). Although they are used in both crown court trials and civil cases, the introduction of the Administration of Justice Act 1933 has reduced the use of juries in civil cases significantly (Joyce 2013, p.208). However, they are only used in about one third of cases in the Crown Court (Huxley-Binns and Martin, p.220). Since the 19th Century, the statutory provisions for jury service have been amended and revised considerably resulting in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Throughout this essay I will be firstly discussing who is eligible to sit on a
The focus of this study depicts the general public perception of the jury selected member’s decision-making process in a criminal justice system after viewing CSI-like drama shows. These shows may have influenced how they perceive criminal law and forensic realism by associating it with crime drama television known as the "CSI effect".
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.