Questions In 12 Angry Men

Later I asked secondary questions, which gave details of the events in question, the questions that I asked my witness was done so it could confirm the facts of the situation. Furthermore, I am not supposed to ask any leading questions (a question that contains the desired answer) because it the witness will either have to say “yes” or “no” to what the lawyer is asking. In this case there was circumstantial evidence, which showed that the accused is most likely the only one who could have committed the criminal offence due to the indirect evidence present, Tisi not wanting to go to jail when Dwayne pulls out a knife this is understandable for Dwayne’s character since he had been in and out with the police and since Tisi wanted to go to college he knew that he was going too far. Also when playing the role of the lawyer I was making sure that the witness’s testimony is credible (the fact or quality of being believable or reliable) by repeatedly asking to recall things that they heard or saw, if the witness is not able to repeat the same information it can weaken either side's case. Moreover, during jury selection both the defence and Crown have the ability to reject jurors with no specific reason (peremptory challenge), though this was not done in any of the mock trials in an actual law trial this would have happened. All in all, as a Crown attorney it was my job to represent society and have the burden of proving the guilt of the accused, opportunity to present evidence and question the other’s witnesses and can also reject prospective

Throughout the play, juror three interrupts others in mid-sentence and attacks their opinions hoping to quash them quickly before they pollute his own flawless opinion and doubt has a chance to creep into the dark crevices of his mind. For instance, when juror eight surprises the group with a second knife, juror three is already angry, too angry. His voice rises and shakes with an animal-like ferocity. "You pulled a real bright trick here. Now supposing you tell us what you proved here. Maybe there are ten knives like that one. So what?" Not thinking that this put a dent in his case, juror eights brains have overcome the emotions of juror three.

Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement made during the course of deliberation Colo. R. Evid 606(b). The defense argued the

Juror Three is defensive of his position. He becomes infuriated after Juror Eight begins questioning the reliability of the witnesses and solidity of the prosecution’s case. He lunges back at eight’s skepticism with the presentation of what he believes is fact. “Ok, what about the knife? You know, the one that fine, upright boy admitted buying on the nights of the murder. Let’s talk about that.” (Rose 21). The use of “You” shows he is directly questioning and assaulting Juror Eight. Clearly demonstrating his defensiveness, rather than addressing the group in a calm and polite manner. Only adding upon his various other acts of “excitability”. Juror Three is trying to hide his bias through a veil of “facts”. However, this fails when he turns

Even though a little more of felony convictions are handled by juries, some attorneys perspectives encourage a trial by jury, arguments can be made in favor for jury trials that reinforce the risk for a negative outcome is low. Jury trial practices have evolved depending on the state, some states permit “jurors to take notes) (308) “Other practices, such as providing at least one written copy of instruction and providing guidance on conducting deliberations, are also common in state courts.”(308-309. To minimize the risk of bias interpretation of judgment upon the alleged crime, attorneys try to play toward the juror’s conscience. If they are fully aware of what their findings mean to the defendant and they do not consider all facts by the

The jury selection processed is flawed and a week part of our criminal justice system. A famous or rich person is guilty of committing a crime and then uses their money for the best defense lawyer money can buy. This lawyer then plants unverifiable seeds of doubt in the jury’s minds and persuades them to believe that the defendant is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by implying, without proof, that there may have been another killer or killers. It’s so easy for the defense to deceive the jury because they intentionally pick jurors they know they can persuade and then they eliminate the jurors that may help the prosecution. The questionnaires for high profile cases are used to each side’s advantage.

“The presumption of innocence’s is the bedrock of our foundation; its what separates us from all the other countries in the world. So as of now you have heard no evidence, could you vote?” My boss, the defense attorney, started asking the 40 potential jurors and one after another, “I haven’t heard anything, guilty.” His frustration grew as he asked each individually.

In the script of “12 Angry Men”, Juror Eight often makes arguments of how the evidence was not as strong as it first appeared within the courtroom. The most evident point of this is when the jurors are discussing how the boy must’ve killed his father because he had admitted to buying a similar looking switch knife earlier that day. However, juror Eight disproved that the knife was ‘one of a kind’ as the store clerk said because he went out and bought an identical one “in a little junk shop around the corner from the boy’s house. It cost two dollars.”. Juror Eight continually analyzes the facts deeper than just seeping to be true or not.

A jury is made up of six to 12 people who are chosen by the defense and the prosecution. A trial jury, otherwise known as a petit jury, takes place to determine whether someone is guilty of the crime they are charged with ("Types of Juries," n.d.). The venire, (the jury panel), is then questioned by the judges and / or the attorneys to determine whether they should be part of the jury, in a process called voir dire (to speak the truth) (Meyer & Grant, 2003). Finding jury members who can look at all the evidence without bias, is an intricate part of a trial, and therefore, finding the right jurors is crucial to the prosecutors, as well as the defense attorneys. Prosecutors want to find members that will be sympathetic to the victim’s situation,

= Jury decision making is influenced both by the individual selves on the jury, and the jury as a whole. On a personal level, jury members may be using heuristics to influence outcomes. These include both availability and representative heuristics. Jurors may rely on their understanding of a group the defendant belongs to or how the group is portrayed in popular culture to make decisions. For example, if the jury was deciding a case of armed robbery and the defendant was a young female, considered attractive by society’s standards, the jury may use heuristic to find her not guilty.

While jurors are supposed to have unbiased opinions and listen closely to all the evidence provided, some of the 12 jurors decided to zero in on a key piece of their own life that they could relate to the suspect's innocence and based their vote on that.

In the United States of America, the criminal justice system is based on the adversarial system or common law system. An adversarial trial allows the accused or defendant to be given a fair chance to prove his or her innocence. The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that the defendant is to be given a fair chance to oppose the prosecution, have witnesses to help with his or her defense, face and question the complainant, and for his or her case to be heard by a group of people who are unbiased and impartial. This group is known as the trial jury.

“Trial Lawyers Cater to Jurors’ Demands for Visual Evidence” by Sylavia Hsieh introduces the fact that lawyers are most comfortable displaying arguments, words, and paper work; jurors are telling lawyers to inquirer their demands wants in visual evidence; with greater detail on the subject of revealing visual evidence is considered a primary objective in the eyes of the jurors. The jurors have

The courts have warned jurors time and time again not to research the case because they could be charged with offence or contempt but it still happens time and time again. The case that shows how outside material could cause a trial to not be fair is R v Marshall and Crump (2007), two defendants that were charged with offences that included robbery and manslaughter claimed they didn’t have a fair trial because after their convictions, material off the Internet was found in the jury room that was a contempt of court and it was not fair because their convictions might have been bias to media speculation resulting to a wrongful

The problem process, first they debate about the knife. Some jurors believe a knife of murder