Jury Defense

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).

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

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

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.

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

who was set on convicting her, quizzed her in the courtroom about the details that surrounded

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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".

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

Marcus, I firmly believe that everyone in class would agree with your statements on destroying evidence pertaining to a defendant’s case. It was interesting how you brought to light the idea that the information in which the prosecutor is compelled to share through testimony in the court is not the prosecutor’s personal property. According to Brady v. Maryland 373 U.S. 83, Prosecutors are obligated to share both exculpatory and inculpatory evidence in the court of law. Do you think that there are any obligations that the prosecutor must abide by when giving the defense attorney evidence proving the defendant innocent? You mentioned in your post about a prosecutor’s risk of becoming corrupt if they decide to destroy evidence to throw a case.