Jury Defense

The lawsuit alleges that, in addition to questions based on immigration and nationality, the defendants asked questions pertaining to their own political activities. The plaintiffs’ attorney and organizer for BAMN Ronald Cruz said, “The only reason they interrogated her was because they had showed up at a school board meet and had spoken in defense of Ms. Felarca.” Similarly, Felarca believes that the interrogations of the students are directly related to her own affairs with BUSD.

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.

Another aspect is when Adnan or his parents would ask her about the plans, she would continuously dismiss them. She was careless with communicating with her client and his family. The same year as Adnan’s trial, she had another case with the Whitman’s. Gutierrez was defending a boy that has been accused of killing his brother. When she was asked for a conference to discuss some plans and information, Gutierrez refused. However, She did seem to care for this case too.

Your Honor, Ladies, and Gentlemen of the jury: This is a case between the US vs Jones. On October 24th, 2005, the defendant, Antoine Jones, was charged with the crime of drug possession after coming under the suspicion of trafficking in narcotics. The Police Department obtained a warrant valid for 10 days that authorizes the installation of a tracking device on Jones’s car in District of Columbia. However, the police installed the tracking device on the 11th day out of the jurisdiction of District of Columbia and therefore violating the warrant’s term. After nearly a month of investigating, Jones led the police to what seemed like a stash house containing $856k in cash and 97 kilos of cocaine. With the sufficient amount of evidence, the police

Every second, there are millions of lawsuits taking places in the United States. There is a question that always needed to be asked: is it a fair trial? The answer depends on all kinds of variables, such as race, education, poverty, age, gender and so on. A jury selection always needs to consider and assess different variables. In addition, in a jury selection, the lawyers and the judge need to eliminate different bias in order to proceed with a fair trail. In the legal system, a jury selection is also referred as voir dire process, which originally translated to an oath taken by jurors to tell the truth. According to the Sixth Amendment, the Constitution provides the defendant in a criminal trial with the right to “ an impartial jury” (Benforado

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

admitted to the murder of Juan Antonio Guerra-Torres and his involvement of the murder with other participants.

Complainant Dusenberry further stated that Investigator Higgins did not interview Witnesses Marisol Molina, Bernadette Talamantez, or Gibert Acquilar. Instead, Investigator Higgins interviewed “people in Respondent Evers’ inner circle.” Who are Diana Chavez and Denise Boles. Complainant Dusenberry stated that Investigator Higgins interviewed people who would not know how she feels and about her harassment.

Giglio (defendant) and Taliento (co-defendant) were thought to be committing several forgeries. The prosecution presented Taliento with immunity in trade of his testimony against Giglio. During the trial, Taliento said that the prosecution never offered leniency for his testimony. Giglio was ultimately convicted. After filing an appeal, Giglio learned of Taliento’s offer from the prosecution.

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.

In this paper I will provide an analysis of a jury trial; my analysis will focus on the right of the defendant. I will articulate how a defendant 's rights at trial can be assured when it comes to The defendant’s right to a speedy trial, the defendant’s right to an impartial judge and the defendant’s right to an impartial jury.

The judges and attorneys are responsible for asking a question from each juror to make sure they can serve fairly and impartially for a trial case. The peremptory challenge is a right to select a jury by rejecting a number of potential jurors. (Hall, 2014) The peremptory challenges may not be used in a discriminatory manner. Jurors can be eliminated by using a peremptory challenge at the start of trial without giving a proper reason for rejecting; however, striking a juror based on race and sex is a violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Hall, 2014) Therefore, an individual serving as a juror cannot be discriminated against due to race or gender. If there has been evidence suggesting that a prosecutor used their peremptory challenges

Based on the United States Constitution, all citizens have the right to a “Trial by Jury,” which is a legal proceeding in which a jury makes a decision in order to direct the actions of a judge. A jury pool is randomly selected first, and then the potential jurors are notified. After, “Voir Dire,” or jury selection, occurs where twelve people are chosen for jury duty.

He is polite and makes a point of speaking with proper English grammar. He is the fourth to ultimately vote not guilty

I immediately noticed that the defendant didn’t have a lawyer, and it shocked me because I don’t usually hear of people successfully defending themselves in court. Before presenting his evidence, he asked the judge a question on how he was supposed to present it, and Judge Green responded by telling him that he had the opportunity to have a lawyer appointed for