Summary: Judge Tuttle

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.

Henry Fonda’s approach to and the perception of his persuasive communication was influenced by the individual differences in the group. Even in a single culture, different people respond differently to different persuasive techniques, and when the difference are drastic, the complications multiply. Although the 12 jurors are all white men they represent a diverse group consisting of different ages, social-economic status, and occupations. Initially, because the movie is set in the 1950’s and the defendant is non-Caucasian I assumed race would play a bigger part in the deliberation. More so, that the race of the jury would outweigh any individual difference they had. As a result, that a consensus based on this factor alone would suffice.

The fact that it was a well-known case from all the media outlets already put even more pressure over this new district attorneys head. John Skagen's case had no real chance, because of this fact. Sad but true fact The accused James Richardson had the well know William Kunstler, who was very popular, well-liked lawyer with well-known cases. Mr. Kunstler knew exactly how to work the jury. He had the upper hand to begin with in this case. As for the outbursts throughout the

My understanding of the court system has changed almost weekly from the beginning of my semester. I do understand things that I never thought I would’ve have known or even cared about in the least. The book Courtroom 302 has brought an even different side of thinking into this. The book goes into detail about the criminal court in Chicago. He watches all of the actions and different trials that come and go in the courtroom 302. He presents many different cases throughout the book which gives more insight then just a single case.

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

1) The jury in this film is relatively diverse. Although on the whole diversity spectrum it isn’t, we see diversity in the age ranges of the jury members and in their different classes, and levels of education. The diversity helps the team in the aspect that it helps seem jury members see differently to others. It allowed some of them to give the defendant a chance and understand the circumstances he had be brought up in and the lifestyle he’d lived in. An example would be when the kid was called slum by certain jury members whereas others gave him a chance.

The process of the various statements given and the ability to convey such a strong message to the jury is the job of the attorney. In my open opinion, the evidence and statements given could not be outweighed by Jorge’s attorney in any way. This was aided by the fact that he was not able to support his arguments and all odds were against him. The courts system of relaying evidence to the jury and giving the people a right to choose what they honestly believe to be the truth of the situation is what todays judicial system is based upon. This was enlightening to me to see happen and I am content with what I have witnessed. Following this case, I was able to find two more that were similar in nature. The first being People v. Dontanville 10 Cal. App. 3d 783; 89 Cal. Rptr. 172; 1970 Cal. App. LEXIS

Including from their own lives each juror has gone through a point in time were even they were stereotyped by the world. The jury has been convinced that the boy has been severely stereotyped through the whole case and court. The 3rd juror let the case come into his own life and he made his own opinion on the boy without even paying attention to detail, he reflected his own life in his argument with stereotypes (72). The lives of the jurors have all been affected by the acts of stereotyping and see the effects of it that can have on someone. A boy that at the beginning almost lost his life due to the people just looking at him was saved by the fact that the jury looked past all that.

Each of the nine prisoners, seven male and two female, had on different colored Oakland County Jail issued uniforms and they were seated in the jury seats of the courtroom. The demographics of the incarcerated were five white males, two black males and two black females. Their age range was from a nineteen year-old female to a 52-year-old white male. At 1:30 exactly a pretrial finished and the lawyers in unison approached the jury box to talk to their respective clients. There were twenty or more pre-trials or trials that day.

I’m juror number eleven I immigrated from Europe to the US I work as a watchmaker.I believe in the justice system in America and will see that it gets carried out fairly and properly. I’m quite, polite, honest, educated, and I’m observant to all the facts, I will take everything into consideration before making a decision on a verdict.As I said before Im quiet and poliet I keep to myself untill I am asked to speak or when details need to be remembered and I treat everyone one with respect. At first I believed that the defendant was guilty but as we deliberated I came to see that there was a reasonable doubt that the defendant was innocent.

Between this time and November 3rd 1994 the jury of 12 was selected out of a venire of 304 perspective jurors. All 304 perspective juror’s had a seventy five page questionnaire to complete to determine eligibility for the trial. Both the prosecuting and defending teams set out to present their case. The trial lasted 134 days in 1995 and is renowned for the media coverage from inside

Judge Johnson was very respectful to the defendants and their attorneys. He read every case’s documents thoroughly, talked to the defendants and their attorneys respectfully, made sure he interpreted the law wisely, gave every party a fair hearing, and enforced the law with love and

Despite the mounting evidence that John Robison and his one good couldn't have possibly committed the horrendous crime the jury was convinced that he had. The emotions in the room were mixed, the common one was disgust that he was wrongly convicted. Even the judge looked disappointed with the obviously biased group of jurors which consisted only of white men since African Americans and women were not allowed to be present on the board. This shows the children that the world is judgmental towards appearance, character, and

Throughout the film the jurors’ judgment shifts from a biased opinion to a more just and conscientious point of view. When Juror Eight says, “you don't believe the boy. How come you believe the woman? She's one of “them”, too, isn't she?” (Rose pg #). Juror Eight is making the point that the other jurors are being inconsistent in their judgement of the boy and the woman. They're both obviously from the slums, so how can the jurors see one different than the other? This makes the men take a step back and rethink how they judge people. “When you judge others, you do not define

May it please the Court, the attorneys for the defense, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, last week you went through a process that is known as voir dire which literally means to "speak the truth" and that's what you were asked to do as you know, as you were back there being questioned by the attorneys for each side. That process is designed to find 12 people who can be fair and impartial to both sides, not favoring one side or the other, but who can give it both sides an even shake and start off with a blank slate. At this stage of the trial, known as the opening statement, the attorneys for each side, myself on behalf of the state, uh Mr. Ford and Mr. Wadley on behalf of Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Price and Mr. Davidson on behalf of Mr. Echols,