Mock Trial Research Paper

Her trial, which started 10 months after the murders, was lead by what towns’ people called the “dream team” of lawyers. The jury had 12 men on it that believed that she was not guilty because after they showed her the skull of her father in court, she fainted, and because she was a girl. They thought that no girl was capable of committing such a crime.

People's bias and predispositions can affect their opinion of different circumstances and different people. This is very evident throughout the play. After the first group vote and juror 8 votes not guilty, a discussion ensues. It is there that

Indeed, Juror 3 and 8 have individual outlooks on the case, but I believe that even between these two diverse people, there are is one strong similarity, and that would have to be persistency. In the whole play, the strongest collisions of disputes were between Juror 3 and 8. Their conflicting perspectives and powerful determinations were what drove the decision of the fate of the accused. In general, these two jurors have strong point of views on how the boy should be treated and why. Even with this similarity, they still use their persistency in diverse

A fair trial is hard to come by nowadays seeing how our justice system is built, but this is definitely one of the few. Felicia Morgan should consider herself a lucky woman because there are many who have made similar mistakes as her and have not been given the same fairness as punishment. As a result, a defendant's lawyer plays a big part of a fair trial

The 3rd Juror says that “everybody deserves a fair trial.” Does the defendant in this case get a fair trial?

The judge, in the movie, actually listened to the prosecutor’s witnesses and decided there was enough probable cause to move forward to a trial. Many judges are often too busy to examine the facts of the case before making a probable cause determination as stated in our text.

In the book Just Mercy, the case of Walter McMillian and the case of Tom Robinson in To Kill A Mockingbird have various similarities in the way their trials developed. They were both convicted of a crime against a woman, the white people were certain they were guilty, and their lawyers worked hard to prove their innocence. There is significant information in To Kill a Mockingbird, that you see in the real case of Walter McMillian, that shows there is definitely truth in fiction. These cases reveal the credibility our justice system and how a town can work together to make an innocent person look guilty.

I attended the District Court at 201 West Picacho Ave on March 7, 2011. I sat in on judge Mike Murphy's court. Judge Murphy started court promptly at 9:00 a.m. but before I got into the court I had to wait in a long line of about 30 people. then when I finally got to the court house door I had to go through a metal detector where I had to take off my belt and shoes and everything metal on my persons. Then I asked one of the officers working the metal dictator how I could ask to sit in on a criminal court that was going on this morning. She then directed me to court room four. I asked the bailiff if it was ok for me to sit in on court today for my criminal justice class, and if the case where criminal matters. The bailiff then told me that

The entire trial was a sham, extremely corrupt due to jury manipulation from the defendant. The jury was allowed to go home to deliberate, giving them time to be threatened, and create a biased opinion from family, friends, media, ect. Also in the court, the judge had suppressed both the wire tape recordings and the lie detector test, throwing away crucial evidence. Not to mention that the only survivor of the

In the end, the case did not work in Campbell’s favour, as it was overturned in the Court of Appeal, even though the trial ruled in favour of her. The only problem with her case was that the parents put forward legitimate concerns about their town’s system regarding socioeconomic status issues which, when you recognize that it’s a poorer part of the city, is something that can be fairly

Justice is the most important theme throughout this play. It proves that truth can’t be found without a struggle. In the play there was only one juror wanting to hear all the evidence in the court case. But when more facts were found out then some of the other jurors wanted to hear the rest of it, which would determine whether the defendant was guilty or not guilty. No one really knew if the boy was guilty but or not but they figured out that he was not given a fair trial. The defence barrister didn’t care because he wasn’t getting paid enough money to care. So that’s what the jurors thought it was up to them then, to repay the boy with justice.

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

After watching the video of Paul and Karla, I was really shocked by the insidiousness that these individuals committed. I was very sorry to see the parents of the teenagers who were murderers so brutally. Consequently, to have been able to have DNA results would soon have saved the lives of the two teenagers who were killed. In my opinion, Karla reflects the classical theory because she did not manifest as a murderer or rapist until later when she met Paul. Karla decided on her own to follow that path without any remorse, and without Paul compelling her as she explained in her testimony. I think the prosecutor's deal of Karla's plea was very bad, in other words it was a mockery of the victims' families. I think that at the end of everything

Juror 4 is able to remain calm and composed throughout the most stressful of situations. While Juror 10 exhibits racial outbursts; “They get drunk”, “That's the way they are!”, “VIOLENT!”, “These people are dangerous. They're wild. Listen to me. Listen.” Juror 4 sat through this entire scene without saying a word. It is only until Juror 10’s monologue is finished that Juror 4 speaks, calmly asking Juror 10 to “Shut [his] filthy mouth.” Juror 4 never discredits or implies anything towards the defendant and is always careful of what he says. After Juror 10’s tirade, Juror 4 tries to soften the impact created by 10; “Slums are potential breeding grounds for criminals.” He never attacks or hypes the situation at hand. He draws around ‘potential’ possibilities. Juror 4 initially had his doubts at the start of the case but was the only character that overcame his predisposition based on the analysis of facts and evidence. Rose’s character and only this character had the intelligence, confidence and persistence to keep his head in the tense moment Juror 10 created.

In the mock trial for my cohort I would’ve enjoyed the role of the witness for the plaintiff, T. J. Walker, but instead decided I would suit best in the jury. I decided this after weighing multiple factors. Foremost, I will not be available the day of the mock trial because I will be attending a graduation. Also, after researching I recognized that the jury includes multiple people and requires attentive listening. (American Bar Association) I have noticed from experience that I feel more comfortable and concentrated if I am listening instead of speaking. A witness would have to undergo questioning and be a rapid responder which is not a trait that I have. (Educaloi) Although I would have to present my opinion on the civil case, I would be