Unsound Father Case

In order for a trial to be brought, the police and prosecutors might be able to prove that the elements of the particular offence are present. In this criminal case both Actus reus, Mens rea as well causation was clearly shown through the behavior of Katherine Knight.

We have repeatedly held that a verdict may not be directed unless the evidence all points one way and is susceptible of no reasonable inference

In determining if there were reasonable grounds for defence, the jury may have regard to the deceased’s general reputation for violence. In Blyton’s case, his father was a ‘bad alcoholic with a temper’ and had a history of domestic abuse. Blyton’s defence argued that this history contributed to Blyton’s heightened awareness of danger and lead to an instinctive reaction by Blyton to stab his father when rushed.

In the State of Wisconsin with the trial of Jamie Covington we found him guilty of first degree murder. Jamie ment to shoot Dallas because dallas was always above him and better. Dallas forgot his keys one evening and he went through the window because he forgot his keys, he claims that he had gone through the window before and he didn't think anything would happen. This is why everyone is being questions to see if he was guilty or no, which he is guilty. During this case the lawyers questioned many people, but their stories weren't adding up. They talked to Ronnie Cecop, Casey Kramer, and Lane Smith they were on the defence side. Then Morgan Dexter, Blair Allen, and Jamie Covington where the prosecution. Most of the people on the prosecution side were very nervous, didn't know some answers, but on the other side the people on the defence side knew every question and didn't seem nervous. All of these people had their strengths and weaknesses.

It was held that failure to direct the jury that a verdict of manslaughter was available Hind’s murder conviction, was merely an error of law and advantageous to Harwood. Accordingly, there was not a miscarriage of justice as the jury were instructed that a conviction of manslaughter was available to Hind if they were not satisfied as to murder due to his negligent handling of the firearm.

Koppersmith’s testimony of his actions portrayed a picture of unintentional events. The judge referred to the Woods case, “ there was some evidence that the appellant failed to perceive the risk that the victim might die as a result of his actions.” Because there was evidence that gave a reasonable theory that would have supported the jury receiving instructions on criminally negligent homicide, there was error in the trial court not giving the jury the instructions. Therefore the judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial.

Some could argue that this case illustrates the failure of the jury system. Despite all the evidence pointing to the guilt of the defendant,

It was held that failure to direct the jury that a verdict of manslaughter was available Hind’s murder conviction, was merely an error of law and advantageous to Harwood. Accordingly, there was not a miscarriage of justice as the jury were instructed that a conviction of manslaughter was available to Hind if they were not satisfied as to murder due to his negligent handling of the firearm.

“I just think he’s guilty. I thought it was obvious. I mean nobody proved otherwise. ”- these words of juror 2 says that he has difficulty maintain his own opinion.

In 12 Angry Men, Juror #8 tries to convince the other jurors that the defendant of the case, an 18 year old boy accused of stabbing his father to death, is not guilty based on a reasonable doubt. Throughout the film Juror #8 goes over the facts and details of the case to point out the flaws in the evidence in order to prove there is, in fact, a reasonable doubt. The film depicts the struggles of the underdog and going against the majority in order to stand up for what is right. In one scene, the piece of evidence being put into question is a testimony from an elderly man who lived below the boy and his father and claimed he heard the murder happen and saw the boy leave the apartment after it happened. It is being put into question whether the elderly man who walked with a limp could make it to his doorway in order to witness the boy running away from the crime in fifteen seconds.

We all have something or someone that we cherish more than anything else. And as life continues those things gain more value and become things that you would cause harm to yourself to obtain or maintain possession of. Wouldn’t you risk everything even if it meant only a chance of maintaining your way of life and your pursuit of happiness? Junger thinks otherwise as one of his bigger claims in his novel, Tribe, states that we won’t find the answer to the question above, throughout the entire course of our lives. Junger misses the target with this claim, our American communities value friendship and comradery. Would you not risk your life for your friends? Your family? Our American community’s prefers that individuals risk their lives for the

Criminal law is based on the principle of actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. The principle is to the extent that a man is not guilty of his acts, actus in the absence of a guilty conscience, mens rea (Gardner, 2009). To this end, criminal law justice provides that the person alleging the commission of a crime must proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person(s) possessed mens rea, if the court is to hold a criminal liability against the accused. In the case of People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson (1995) or what has come to be famously known as the O.J. Simpson Trial is a classical illustration of how highly the U.S. criminal justice regards the beyond reasonable doubt principle.

The rule states, " A defendant may be excused from criminal responsibility if at the time of the commission of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from a disease of mind, as not to know the nature and the quality of the act he was doing..." (3)

guilty because he had a reasonable doubt in his mind and he listened to everyone's opinions,

“A person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.” In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, a 19-year-old is on trial for the murder of his father. After many pieces of evidence were presented, the three that are shaky include the height of the father, the woman who saw from the el train, and the old man who saw the boy running down from the stair. Based on these, the boy is not guilty.