Jury Trial Analysis Essay

The defense has just discovered a witness whose statement is favourable to their case 45 days prior to the scheduled beginning of the trial. While it is required by law in the State of California to declare any reasonably anticipated witnesses and turn over statements they have made, there would be no technical basis for objection if the defense were to withhold this information and call the witness unexpectedly on the day of the trial. Because it can be argued that the defense decided the day of to call the witness, there will be no official complaint. However, there are important moral ramifications in this situation, as well as creating doubt as to the defense’s credibility.

Afterward, the defendant council is allowed to cross-examine the witnesses. In the movie, Vinny cross-examines each witness and successfully refutes their eyewitness accounts. The prosecution's last witness is a forensic automotive instructor with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Vinny objects to this witness because there was no advance notice and he asks for a full day's continuance, but his objection and continuance are overruled. Vinny has no rebuttal for this witness because he has had no time to gather evidence or interpret the reports. Instead, he brings in his own expert witness, Mona Lisa Vito, a former mechanic who proves that there was a second car at the crime scene. The prosecutor asks for a "voir dire," which refers to questioning witnesses about their qualifications. Vinny's final witness, the sheriff, has discovered two men similar to Bill and Stan that drove a similar car and committed the crime. Because of this, the prosecutor asks the judge to dismiss the

Every day people are convicted of crimes or arrested for other reasons. Once they are convicted they are summoned to court, this begins the jury process. Citizens are randomly chosen to serve on jury duty. The citizens on the jury will use the jury system to determine if the person being accused is guilty or innocent. Trials can become very long or they can be short it just depends on the topic and how long it takes to decide on what the consequences will be. The jury system is the main trial and the main decision of whether or not someone is right or wrong.

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 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.

Dan Locallo is a very contradicting man. When he began his career as a prosecutor he was anything but polite to the defense lawyers. Locallo himself describes himself as “kind of an asshole” towards defense lawyers (Courtroom 302, 59). During his time as a prosecutor, Dan Locallo became intrigued by the opportunity to become a judge. When Steve Bogira asked Locallo why he wanted to become a judge, his reply seemed simple. Locallo claimed that he never wanted to become a judge because of a “power-trip” he does claim that “the power of attraction was a great influence” (Courtroom 302, 59). However, Locallo admits that the real reason why he wanted to become a judge was because he would have the “ability to make decisions, to do

Second, the defendant must show that the errors made by counsel prejudiced the defense. This means showing that counsel’s error were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, or a trial whose result is reliable (Strickland v. Washington, 466 US 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed. 2d 674 (1984)

Juries are a crucial and irreplaceable part of the American justice system. The jury system has been around for hundreds of years. Our founding fathers viewed jury service as a critical part of democracy and self government. Twelve ordinary citizens make up the jury and will form a decision about the case. The jury system is still needed in the twenty-first century because it ensures the accused gets a fair trial and it promotes civic participation.

The defense case in chief must mount a defense that either demolishes the prosecutor’s case or, at a bare minimum, creates reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. A defendant has no burden of proofs in any criminal case and can still prevail without introducing any evidence with the exception of affirmative defenses. Based on the Fifth Amendment the defendant may choose not to testify to avoid self- incrimination. The defense counsel also calls defense witnesses for direct examination. Defense testimony may also include expert witnesses who have special training and qualifications and are permitted to offer opinions. The prosecution is permitted to cross-examine each defense witness.

During the trial, all evidence from both the prosecution and the defense is brought forward, and witnesses are brought in to testify in front of the judge or jury. This is when the prosecuting attorney pleads his case of guilt and the defense attorney casts doubt on the prosecution’s case, while proving the innocence of their client. Each trial has a set routine that it mostly adheres to. It starts with each attorney giving their opening statements, moving on to the presenting their cases while

Justice Evatt delivered a paper to the Australian Legal Convention which entitled “The Jury System in Australia” in 1936 . Justice Evatt’s thesis of Jury trials was that “in modern day society the jury system is regarded as an essential feature of real democracy”. Jury trials in the nineteenth century were found way before in four colonies Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia . When Trial by Judge alone was first introduced in South Australian thirty eight were held in the Supreme Court between 1989 and 1993, meaning all annual percentage of all criminal trials in the court ranged between 3.9% and 8.9% . The Juries Act SA 1927 was amended many times making some major changes. In 1966, women were introduced in the South Australian Jury system as only men were capable of serving on Juries. An increase to the number of jurors available to contribute in a criminal trial was amended in 2004 . It now states in the Juries Act 1927 under section 6A that if court agrees there are good reasons to add additional jurors of 2 or 3 it can be empanelled for a criminal trial .

witness(es). If the judge decides there is enough evidence that the person has committed a crime,

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

The defense may also present physical evidence and call upon eyewitnesses to go to the stand. Once an eyewitness is called to the stand the opposing side will then get a chance to cross examine the witness. It starts by having a witness called to the stand where they take an oath to tell the truth. Whomever called the witness to the stand directly question the witness through a question and answer technique. Once the original party is done questioning the witness the opposing side will then get to cross exam the witness in hopes of discrediting the witness’s testimony. After the cross examination, the original side will then get another chance to address the witness, which is known as “re-direct examination” in attempt to repair any questions that may have been made after the cross examination. After both sides present their evidence and state their case there is a “rest”. This is when no more evidence can be presented to the jury.

Trial by Jury and Alternatives to It In order to decide whether or not trial by jury should or should not