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
In addition to this concept, Juror #10 shows that past experiences and person bias influence the thoughts and opinions of a person. Juror 10 segregates and divides people stereotypically into “us” being him and the middle class and with “them” being the people of the slums, a different race, or a different upbringing. As a result of these thoughts, Juror 10 was bias towards the young Puerto Rican man on trial because the young man was born in the slums, had a difficult childhood, and a troubled past. Since the boy was Puerto Rican, a different race from Juror 10, Juror 10 consistently antagonizes the boy because it fits his description of “them”. “Look these people are drinking and fighting all the time, and if somebody gets killed…they’re
Well Juror #3 talked about his own son that we see the true reason for his bias against the boy. During the trial, Juror 3 talks about how he once saw his own son run away from a fight. I remember him saying " I told him (his son) right out," I'm going bust you up into little pieces for trying." When his son was 15 he him on the face. Which clears how that this guy has huge problems with kids not respecting their father. In my understanding each Juror brings their own life problems into that jury room. We can't control our emotions, we all are human and it's normal to express feelings. One juror was hurting badly leading him to act that way. He misses his son and is very disappointed in his son for such high disrespect towards his father.
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.
Some people may argue that Brother is innocent and did not kill Doodle since he also taught Doodle how to walk.This argument makes sense because Brother was trying to help Doodle. In the story it says that Brother taught Doodle to walk so that’s where he could be innocent since he was kind enough to teach his disabled brother to walk. It could prove he is innocent since it gives no evidence he killed him because he did something kind for Doodle. However, this argument does not matter because Brother was still planning all along to kill Doodle since he was disabled. Brother showed him the casket he was going to die in, and he left him face down in the rain knowing Doodle couldn’t help himself since he was disabled.
In the drama Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, juror 8 does a good job in persuading the other jurors to listen and reconsider the evidence. He uses his rhetorical appeals to captivate the other jurors attention. He gains an authority towards the other jurors which makes them trust him more. Juror 8 deconstructs the testimony and evidence with his rhetorical appeal to make the other jurors consider the innocence of the defendant.
“A Jury of Her Peers” and “Trifles” by Susan Glaspell are the same stories, but in different literary formats. These stories are based on the stereotype of women in society in the early 1900s. The roles of women as anything other than homemakers were downgraded. The stories showed how men, of that time, never considered just how hard women worked doing all of the household chores every day. These stories showed women who were treated like children and have no meaning in the workforce or anything else besides serving the men. “A Jury of Her Peers” and “Trifles” share the same plot; however, “Trifles” is a play and “A Jury of Her Peers” is a short story. This makes the same story be told differently because of the genres of literature. A play is represented in a theatrical performance or on film. A short story is a story with a fully developed theme but significantly shorter and less elaborate than a novel. It was easier to read the play rather than read the short story. However, the short story gave more content towards the story Glaspell was telling her readers by showing the point of view of both the men and women, while “Trifles” just explains the story.
Women’s rights were a significant issue in the nineteenth century, and in “A Jury of Her Peers.” The men overlooked the rights and problems that the women in “A Jury of Her Peers” were enduring. Women, however, through these issues, have been able to come together. In “A Jury of Her Peers,” the journey of women’s rights portrays women’s unity.
Imagine having a brother who is incapable of doing anything for himself. James Hurst’s short story tells the tale of a young boy in this position and the way his mindset is. In the short story “The Scarlet Ibis,” James Hurst uses imagery, setting, and motif to convey Brother’s feelings of guilt. By using these literary elements, Hurst allows the readers to take a deeper look into Brother’s perception towards Doodle at the time.
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.
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.
Any jury trial is bound to have some sort of conflict involved when coming to a verdict. The portrayal of a murder case in the movie, 12 Angry Men, involves many different examples of conflict, as well as the approaches to conflict used by different characters. Almost every conversation in the film involves conflict, since the characters are all debating whether or not the boy being tried for murder is guilty or not, but there are a few scenes in which different types of conflict and different approaches to conflict seem to stand out.
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
In a world where showing a bit too much shoulder was forbidden, came Susan Glaspell. Glaspell was an American playwright, born in the cruel times of oppression. This influenced women’s opinions on certain subjects which caused them to be silenced by fear of rejection from society. “A Jury of Her Peers” was based on an era where women felt as though it was unreasonable to speak up if they felt it was not absolutely dire. Harboring these pent up feelings could cause a person to act antagonistic. Minnie Wright was an example of this. She killed her husband and was subjected to the judgement of her peers. As the group investigated Mr. Wright’s death, there were two stories unraveling. The in depth explanation that the women figured out and the simplistic version the men had seemed to pick up (Glaspell). People would benefit from reading this story to begin to understand the struggle of what this and other women had gone through. Penn Manor American Literature students would benefit from having Susan Glaspell’s story “A Jury of Her Peers” in their curriculum because of how she expressed feminism through her writing at a time when it was new and discouraged; her ability to emphasize the themes with her settings and characters; and her literature that follows a protagonist that navigates through a sexist world.