Twelve Angry Men: Relative Evidence

In order for evidence to be properly authenticated, “the trial judge must determine that there is proof from which a reasonable juror could find that the evidence is what the proponent claims it to be.” Sublet v. State, 442 Md. 632, 638 (2015). Indeed, the purpose of Md. Rule 5-901 is to ensure that the evidence’s proponent has satisfied a burden of production sufficient to permit a reasonable fact finder to conclude the evidence is what its proponent claims it to be. The standard for authenticity, however, is

Rules Evid. 608(b). However, if the witness denies the act, it may not be proved by other evidence unless the act to be proved has some relevance to the case that is independent of its bearing on credibility. In some states, such as California, inquiry concerning prior bad acts that have not resulted in a criminal conviction is not permitted to attack the credibility of a witness. Id.

The admissibility of expert testimony from the past to the present, The Federal Rule of Evidence, Rule 702 (1975) the revision of Rule 702 (2000) and (2010), Frye v United States (1923), Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993), and Kumho Tire Co., v Carmichael (1999).

Answer 8. Clinton Evidence Example: Clintons evidence was when she mentioned in the debate that Trump has taken Business Bankruptcy six times. The evidence show that is true its accurate Trump declared four times within two years in the 1990s and once more in 2004 and 2009. Her evidence was Relevance it is accessible internally and externally to support her claim, that proved Trump has filed Bankruptcy.

Evidence may be different in each class but it still has the same objective. For example, in accounting in order for us to figure out one’s assets and liabilities we have to focus on the numbers which help lead us to a conclusion. In this class the evidence we look at is the law. We analyze certain portions of the law to figure out whether a person is guilty of committing the crime. In law evidence is essential to proving whether a person is innocent or guilty. Evidence can be anything like a fingerprint, blood, hair trace, etc it will help lead us to a

because they withheld material evidence that could have changed the sentencing part of Mr. Brady’s trial. Mr. Brady was not innocent in his crimes but the prosecutor held back and did not disclose ahead of time information on a confession and “due process requirements not only

You're not gonna tell me you believe that phony story about losing the knife, and that business about being at the movies. Look, you know how these people lie! It's born in them! I mean what the heck? I don't even have to tell you. They don't know what the truth is! And lemme tell you, they don't need any real big reason to kill someone, either! No sir! [Juror 10, page 51] This type of prejudice offended many of the other jurors, especially Juror 5 who is of similar race to the accused.

The last major fact that influences the juries agreement that the accused is not guilty are doubts of another witness’s testimony; the lady across the street who supposedly saw the accused young man stab his father. The jurors started talking about needing glasses to read the clock when Juror 8 realizes that the lady used very strong glasses and it is not possible that she could have had time to put them on and see the young man clearly stab his father. Juror 8 says,

The California Evidence Code as well as the Federal Rules of Evidence have very specific provisions that govern how and when character evidence can be used at trial. Those

Circumstantial evidence is probably one of the biggest ethical concerns when people are being convicted of crimes. Circumstantial evidence is: “Evidence not bearing directly on the fact in dispute but on various attendant circumstances from which the judge or jury might infer the occurrence of the fact in dispute”. (Dictionay.com, 2010). Many

A boy may die,” and changes his vote to “not guilty” which is another instance where the boy gets a fair trial. The 12th and 7th juror find it difficult to decide on which way to vote and therefore vote “not guilty” so that the boy is not “sent off to die.” The 12th juror’s lack of a defined and consistent point of view reflects America’s post war materialism. The 4th juror believed that the defendant was guilty for most of the play but then was the 2nd last juror to change his vote and admitted that he had a “reasonable doubt.” Although the audience never finds out whether the defendant was “guilty” or “not guilty” the jurors give the “kid from the slums” an honest trial.

the State’s evidence on all elements of the offense charged. . .,” and (2) that evidence of

Forensic science evidence admissibility is when the forensic evidence can be used in the courtroom against a person. Any forensic science evidence that is admissible will be used in courtroom against that defendant. All types of evidence are shown to a judge or a jury to me a case against a suspect. Evidence that can be considered admissible, is any document, testimony, or tangible evidence used in a court of law. There are four types of evidence. The four types of evidence are demonstrative, documentary, real, and testimonial evidence. An example of demonstrative evidence is

“Physical evidence cannot be wrong; it cannot perjure itself; it cannot be wholly absent. Only its interpretation can err. Only human failure to find it, study and understand it can diminish its value.”  (Harris vs. United States, 1947).

The old man gave evidence that he heard the boy say “I’ll kill you” from his apartment below and that he saw the boy running from the down the stairs from the apartment after rising from his bedroom. The old lady saw the boy kill his father through her window, whilst a train was passing. Juror #8 analyses each of these points and makes credible arguments that the conclusion is flawed based on incorrect reasoning, by pointing out inconsistencies in the conclusions reached. The other jurors are content to believe that their reasoning is solid, as they have used examples of deductive reasoning to reach their conclusion. Juror #3 gives his reasons for reaching the conclusion that “It’s quite clear that the boy never went to the movies that night, returned home and killed his father with the knife as identified in Court” (Fonda & Lumet, 1957). Until Juror #8 takes out a similar knife and poses the question that it was possible that another knife was used, Juror #7 calls it a million to one however Juror #8 persists in saying it was possible. He also uses this analysis method to cast aspersions on the second point and third points raised by systematically analyzing each component.