The Trial and the Surpise Twist

Pamela Colloff’s “The Innocent Man,” is an eye-opening, gut-wrenching essay in which Colloff beautifully takes a high complexity prejudiced case of a guilty murder verdict and successfully brings to light her inspiring character Michael Morton’s true innocence in a flawed justice system. Suspense, sadness and frustration are effectively provoked from the reader about Michael’s tragic nightmare which persists for over two decades of time. A nightmare which begins when Michael returns home from work on August 13, 1986, to find out his dead wife was beaten to death in their bed. This is only the beginning of what Colloff unfolds in her writing of Michael’s twenty-five-year agonizing battle behind bars. Step by step Colloff’s marvelous writing

Twenty years later information surfaced that suggested that the evidence in the two previous trials had been tampered with. The Assistant District Attorney, with the help of Evers's widow, began compiling a new case. (Elliot Jr., pg.1)

The Lizzie Borden case has mystified and fascinated those interested in crime forover on hundred years. Very few cases in American history have attracted as much attention as the hatchet murders of Andrew J. Borden and his wife, Abby Borden. The bloodiness of the acts in an otherwise respectable late nineteenth century domestic setting is startling. Along with the gruesome nature of the crimes is the unexpected character of the accused, not a hatchet-wielding maniac, but a church-going, Sunday-school-teaching, respectable, spinster-

“Mrs. Lee and Mr. Hua, seeing their daughter lying there dead on the bridal couch, naturally were beside themselves with anger and grief, and immediately pounced on the first likely suspect. But the young man Hoo had all the marks of an elegant literary student. His explanation sounded plausible and entirely in character. He doubted that young Hoo had committed this crime” (147).

The cumulative effect of this perspective is that if the judge is hard on the allegedly obscene editors and misrepresents their defence to the jurors, this would only be what you would expect of such a second-rate individual. Robertson’s presentation, based on truth, is heavily influenced by bias and opinion against the judge and, thereby, in favour of the defendants. The eventual verdict of guilty is seen to be inevitable. The editors were sent to prison for psychiatric examination.

Have you ever been too filled with hate and pride to see the obvious truth right in front of you? The year was 1935 in the small town of Maycomb Alabama. During this time an important trial would be taking place. The trial of Tom Robinson, an African and American who had been promptly accused of rape by the one man who had seen the incident. Bob Ewell a despised person throughout the community and the father of the victim, Mayella Ewell, Bob’s abused, lonely, unhappy daughter. Though one can pity Mayella because of her overbearing father, one cannot pardon her for her shameful indictment of Tom Robinson.

Between 7:15 and 7:30 last night a person, by the name of Paul Dudden, in this residence, took his last breath behind the screen in the library as he was being brutally murdered. One thing’s for sure the murderer knew what they wanted. They wanted Paul Dudden gone. When Paul Dudden took his last look at this cruel world, the murderer looked down and smiled at their accomplishment. Unfortunately for the murderer, it is clear who this malevolent person is. He was no other that Mr. Parsons himself. After interviewing Mrs. Parsons, one of the Ellis’ car went into the driveway drove by the one and only Amy Ellis at 8:00. Now here’s the thing, why didn’t Mr. Parson see the car as well? As the car drove in, Mr. Parsons wasn’t in his house at all.

Many aspects of Matthew Harrison Brady influence his conduct of the trial. Mr. Brady is a

A little over a century ago an atrocious double murder was committed, in the two-half story house at 92 Second Street, in Fall River, Massachusetts. This crime shocked the city of Fall River, as well as the nation, as Lizzie Borden, a 32-year-old Sunday school teacher, went on trial for the murder of her father and her stepmother. (Augustine). An all male jury eventually acquitted her on the accusations.(Aiuto). To this day, the murderer of Andrew J. Borden and Abby Gray Borden is still unknown, but in the public mind everyone believes it was Lizzie Borden.

In Susan Glaspell’s, “A Jury of her Peers”, it is the women who take center stage and captivate the reader’s emotions. Throughout the feministic short story, which was written in 1917, several repeating patterns and symbols help the audience to gain a deeper understanding of the difficulty of prairie life for women and of the bond that women share. The incredible cunning the women in the story demonstrate provides insight into the innate independence that women had even during days of deep sexual discrimination. In “A Jury of her Peers”, the hardships women of the early twentieth century must endure and the sisterhood that they can still manage to maintain are manifested as a mysterious, small-town murder unfolds.

In the story Cohen makes use of the most trivial murder of 1836 to show the twisted societal accommodations of those who are considered privileged, hypocritical channelled views towards sexuality and legal codes exploitation with a mingling of tabloids journalism and mere politics. In her story Cohen brings out a really sensational fact that a place for women is determined by a man.

“A Jury of Her Peers” is a short story written by Susan Glaspell in 1917 illustrates early feminist literature. The two female characters, Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale, is able to solve the mystery of who the murderer of John Wright while their male counterparts could not. This short story had been adapted from Glaspell’s one-act play Trifles written the previous year. The play consists of the same characters and plotline as the story. In both works, Glaspell depicts how the men, Sheriff Peters and Mr. Hale, disregard the most important area in the house, the kitchen, when it comes to their investigation. In the end, the women are the ones who find clues that lead to the conclusion of Minnie Wright, John Wright’s wife, is the one who murdered him. Both of Glaspell’s female characters illustrate the ability to step into a male dominated profession by taking on the role of detective. According to Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide, written by Lois Tyson, a reader-response critique “focuses on readers’ response to literary texts” and it’s a diverse area (169). Through a reader-response criticism from a feminist lens, we are able to analyze how “A Jury of Her Peers” and Trifles depict how a patriarchal society oppresses women in the early twentieth century, gender stereotypes confined both men and women and the emergence of the New Woman is illustrated.

From beginning to end, Susan Glaspell’s 1917 short story “A Jury of Her Peers,” has several repetitive patterns and symbols that help the reader gain a profound understanding of how hard life is for women at the turn-of-the-century, as well as the bonds women share. In the story two women go with their husbands and county attorney to a remote house where Mr. Wright has been killed in his bed with a rope and he suspect is Minnie, his wife. Early in the story, Mrs. Hale sympathizes with Minnie and objects to the way the male investigators are “snoopin’ round and criticizin’ ” her kitchen. In contrast, Mrs. Peters, the Sheriffs wife, shows respect for the law, saying that the men are doing “no more than their duty”. However, by the end of the story Mrs. Peters unites with Mrs. Hale in a conspiracy of silence and concealing evidence. What causes this dramatic transformation?

Introduction In this portfolio I will talk about a real life case which is similar to Jennifer Jones’. First I will explain the case with all details I can find, and then I will mention a point that we have never heard about in the book: what happened to Lucy, the witness, the living victim of case. We read about Jennifer Jones, her mother, Michel’s family. We know what happened to everyone except Lucy.

This is case that faces Mary Barnett. The issue in this case is that On January 23, the litigant, Mary Barnett, left Chicago to visit her life partner in San Francisco having left her six-month-old little girl, Alison, unattended in the apartment. Mary Barnett returned home a week later to find that her child had died of dehydration. She called the police and at first, to let them know that she had left her kid with a baby sitter. She later expressed that she had left the child and she didn 't mean to return, and that she knew Alison would die in a day or two. She has been accused of wrongdoing of second-degree murder; purposeful homicide without intention. In the event that she is sentenced, she could face up to eighteen years in prison. This piece of writing tries to give the verdict of the case after critically examining both prosecution and defendant side.