In our 3rd block Ransom Red Chief Trial, we had very good points of view from both the prosecution team and the defense team. The Prosecution seemed to have more evidence that Bill and Sam had intentions on kidnapping the young boy. Along with the Defense had some good evidence but,of course, it wasn’t enough. The Defense team continued to repeat the same thing and at one point, I personally felt as if they weren’t on Bill and Sam’s side. One time, Bill admitted to kidnapping the kid. Red Chief’s father, Mr.Dorset, kind of threw his son under the bus. If you were ever wondering how we could fix our trial, we could definitely learn our parts better and find out what role we should play. The Prosecutors won the case, mainly because they had more
These defenders not only took the challenge of attempting to persuade a jury that a young, black, male wasn’t the shooter, but also took the case to heart and understood Brenton’s story. The defenders found multiple holes in the case that was presented by the prosecutors on the other side. The holes defined a lack of evidence as well as a strong case against the detectives who interrogated Brenton. There was no physical evidence, such as a gun, to prove that Brenton shot them. There were also no fingerprints recorded that matched Brenton’s. The defenders also found that the police and detectives did virtually nothing to make sure that Butler was the shooter. The only lead that the police went off of was the fact that he was a black male. When the police found the first black man they found walking, they picked him up, had Stephens (incorrectly) identify him as the shooter, and took him to confess. The detectives in charge of the investigation, James Williams, Michael Glover, and Dwayne Darnell, were found to have corrupted the case. Glover was found to have threatened and beaten Butler during an interrogation in order to confess to the crimes, calling him nigger in the process. Darnell was found to have written the written confession without the complete approval of Butler- it was a false confession. Williams was found to have not taken enough action in the case to provide reasonable support for the case that found Butler guilty. Through all of these holes, the defenders helped set free Brenton Butler, as the jury came to a decision in 45
The criminal trial process aims to provide justice for all those involved, while it succeeds in the majority of cases, it effectiveness is influenced and reduced by certain factors. These include the legal representation involved in a case and the availability of legal aid, the capacity of the jury assessing the trial, the credibility of scientific evidence and the impact of social media on the trial process. Due to such flaws the criminal trial process is not always an effective means of achieving justice.
The trial of Columbus versus the state took place is took place and was a grueling debate of whether or not Columbus was to be sentenced for the crimes that were committed or not to be. As the prosecution continued to charge Columbus the defence continually discredited there arguement because of how they evidently had no proof that Columbus himself was responsible for the crimes committed. At first this made it very interesting as the trail was not just a push over. However very quickly it became boring a repetitive for the jury to watch. Then with the constant yelling of objection it became painstaking long to watch as it seemed like there wasn't even a trail going on. In addition to that the fifteen minute long answer by one of the witnesses was extremely drawn out seeing as no new information was presented except for at the start because of how the witness refused to give a yes or no answer and kept repeating her statement. Although the rest of the trail was pretty well done. Both side of the trail were very well prepared making for the most part an eventful fun to watch. The constant screaming between mostly Mason and James was to say the least very funny and especially with the constant belittlement of James. The reason I voted the way I did was because of how, like I stated before, the evidence brought against Columbus was all
The goal of the 12 jurors is to make a unanimous decision the defendant is either innocent or guilty. The jurors must make this decision based on whether the prosecutor’s evidence proved the defendant’s innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. Leadership played a large role in achieving this goal. Some of these three leadership forms were
The prosecution works to get their guilty verdict while the defense tries to help their clients with their verdicts. In court I listen to both sides argue the Innocence/Guilt of the young woman in question wanted on DWI charges. The honorable judge Pauline Hankins presides over the court and waits patiently for all the evidence to be presented. The prosecution and the defense are set on opposite sides of the courtroom while the jury box and the belief are set next to the judge. Judge Pauline Hankins is in the middle of the courtroom in front of the North Carolina State seal with an office on the right next to the witness stand. Everything that has been said in the court is added to the court record. The court record is a detailed document
In America we have an Adversary System of Justice, which means that criminal trials proceed under the adversary theory of justice to arrive at the truth in a given case. One characteristic of this system is intensive cross-examination of both defense and prosecution witnesses. In a jury trial, it is for the jury, which observes these witnesses, to weigh the evidence and make the ultimate decision in every case—guilty or not guilty. However, not every case makes it to trial in fact, about 80% of defendants plead guilty allowing them to just be sentenced and not have to go through the whole process of a trial. Other cases are dropped, or dismissed if the prosecutor, or in some cases a grand jury, feels that there is insufficient evidence to carry on. Some defendants are sent to diversion programs, these individuals are often sent here because an official involved in the case believes that there is a better way to deal with a defendant than to prosecute them.
During this documentary, the viewers get an inside look at how criminal proceedings work. In the courtroom, the most important players are the prosecution, defense, and judge. The judge is in the room to make sure the proceeding runs smoothly and to settle any arguments that arise. The prosecution is there to accuse the defendant for whatever crime he or she has been convicted of. The defense is there to defend the person being convicted of the crime. There is also a bailiff who is there to oversee the court and make sure everyone there is safe. The bailiff will bring evidence form the defense or prosecution to the judge, as nobody is to approach the bench without the judge calling attorneys to the
According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him”(UN General Assembly, 1948). But history has demonstrated that even though as human you are entitled to a fair trial, you are not entitled to justice. Throughout history, many reforms and movements have forged our judicial system, the judicial system currently is undeniably more foolproof than it was before the 1900s. Even though the system has improved in numerous ways by laws and amendments such as the 6th amendment in 1791, but history repeats itself. The Salem Witch Trials of 1692 and the Scottsboro Boys Trials are embodiments of this saying, they may have happened 240 years apart but have many things in common. Some things these trials have in common are insufficient evidence, unfair chances, and long term effects on the victims and community.
Wrongful convictions occur every day. With a legal system that is at times dependent on eyewitness accounts and hearsay there is room for error. Sometimes these errors of justice are quickly rectified, but at other times the process can be long and drawn out. In the case of the West Memphis three: Damian Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelley, were teenagers when they were arrested for the murders of three young boys: Chris Byers, Michael Moore, and Stevie Branch. For nearly two decades, although convicted of the crimes, the West Memphis three denied any involvement in the murders. The West Memphis three case is a prime example of how small town misconceptions and rumors can take hold of a criminal case and twist non-existent
The heart of the American Judicial System is the determination of the innocence or guilt of the accused. At the beginning of the play, the jurors all feel that the man is guilty for murdering his father and they all wanted to convict him without carrying out a detailed discussion. The persistence of juror eight, however, plays a significant role in ensuring that the correct and fair verdict is delivered. The judicial system maintains that the defendant does not have an obligation to prove his innocence. The fact is not clear to everyone as Juror 8 reminds Juror 2 about it. The fact is a key element of the judicial system and assists in the process of coming up with a verdict. The defendant is usually innocent until proven guilty. Another element of the judicial system that comes out in the play is for a verdict to stand it must be unanimous. Unanimity ensures that the
Some of the hardest decisions on trial are made by the jury, which means the jurors have one of the most important roles when it comes to the trial, since they have to decide on another human’s fate, either. One decision a jury makes can be the difference between going to jail for life or being liberated. When O.J. Simpson was declared “not guilty” for the homicide of his wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and his friend, Ronald Lyle Goldman, by the Lance Ito, many argued that O.J. should have been proclaimed “Guilty”. Although many claim the verdict given was ideal, strong evidences, proves O.J. Simpson to be guilty for murdering 2 of his close acquaintances.
On July 22, 2015 I witnessed a trial with three defendants Rahmel Bond, Jermaine Butts, Demetrius Gill. All three alleged criminals are being charged with the shooting death of William Jordan during a robbery. While waiting for the trial to start I observed the atmosphere of the court room, I was expecting to see a few reporters, family members of the victim or even for the defendants. There was only me and the assistant for the district attorney in the crowd, when I summed up the courage, I informed her that I was a criminal justice major and was sitting in to witness the trial; she then explain to me what was the proceedings for that day. The prosecutor who is assistant district attorney Deingeniis was ending his closing arguments on that
The relationship between law enforcement and prosecutors, which goes hand-in-hand, can’t be overlooked. Evidence of a crime that detectives and law enforcement discover is as equally important as a good trial on part of the prosecution. If detectives aren’t able to find good solid evidence – that case usually isn’t bothered in being pursued. Several years ago, in the late 80’s, there was a murder case in Southeastern Oklahoma which now serves as a tragic example to the need for honest, constitutional work in the criminal justice system. Disreputable investigative procedures, fraudulent sources, and bad evidence were the foundation of this case that shattered innocent lives.
According the five Methods for Influencing Other Group Members - use of reason, assertiveness, coalition building, higher values, and bargaining - when Juror Eight said: “we are talking about somebody life here, we can’t just decide within five minutes, suppose we are wrong”, he used the youth human-being life’s important and the danger of a false decision as good reasons to force other jurors in analyzing the facts carefully. He then talks about the boy’s backgrounds for appealing to logic and rational thinking of other jurors. Juror Three was overt prejudice, hostility, and used “assertiveness” to influence the other ten jurors of jury provided an antagonist for juror Eight. Juror eight used “coalition building” method to seek alignment with other group members. He never says that he believes the defendant is innocent but his mantra throughout the movie was “it’s possible!” referring to the reasonable doubt, which he convinced others’ thought. Juror Eight continued to appeal other eleven juror’s higher values by repeatedly reinforcing their moral and judicial obligation to convict only if there was no reasonable doubt. He challenged each juror to look at the facts more thoughtfully. “Bargaining” is offering an instrument exchange. Juror 8 used this method when he said: “I want to call for another vote… If there are 11 votes for guilty, I won’t stand alone… But if anyone votes not guilty, we stay here and talk it out.”
The right to a trial by jury is a core element of the United States Criminal Justice System. This right is guaranteed to all citizens by the highest law of the land: The United States Constitution. But are juries truly an effective means of securing justice? The movie 12 Angry Men provides commentary on this question with its portrayal of twelve jurors deliberating over a murder case. The jury initially seems bound to condemn the defendant, a young man of nineteen years, to the electric chair, but a single man, Juror no. 8 descents against the majority. Over the course of the film, tensions rise, and after much debate Juror no. 8 manages to convince the other eleven jurors to eventually vote not guilty. Through their debates and casual side conversations, we are shown the role of personal biases and group manipulation tactics that can impede with objective analysis and ultimately the attainment of justice. Thus, the Movie 12 Angry Men mostly serves to challenge the jury system as a means of securing justice by demonstrating the harmful effects of personal biases, the lack of dedication to the system, and the potential for manipulative tactics.