Victor Stanley's Last Letter

When discussing the indictment of Bridget Bishop in Boyer and Nissenbaum's documents it states separately the complaint, examination offense and testimonies of all the witness's continuously from pages 36-52 . It follows a close chronological order of the proceedings from start to finish.

exchanged with Steenkamp and that he heard the lavatory door slam, and first saying he fired at

“Testimonials during court hearings are performed under oath, hence the statements of an individual being examined are assumed to be true and no other statement should be falsified or forged. When the officer does not pronounce the truth in court, he or she is still capable of providing a reason for his deception, based on a substitute arrangement, such as when he or she is operating as a witness to the prosecution and is not considered as the defendant in a court case. However, it is also required that the officer is conscious of the rules of the court system that he or she has sworn to tell the truth during examination” (Chevigny , 1969).

In his closing argument for OJ Simpson’s criminal trial, Johnnie Cochran successfully argues for Simpson’s innocence. Repetition, appeals to audience emotion, and the use of scenarios to appeal to logic are all rhetorical devices which Cochran skillfully uses in order to create an argument that is strong and convincing to the courtroom. These devices help him shape his argument tactically in a manner and order that successfully defends OJ Simpson in the trial.

5.”Four, five, six – seven times they met during the month of June. Winston had dropped his habit of drinking gin at all hours. He seemed to have lost the need for it. He had grown fatter, his varicose ulcer had subsided, leaving only a brown stain on the skin above his ankle, his fits of coughing in the early morning had stopped” (Orwell

“This is not about what she did, ” Jackson countered, “This is about what you might have done. We suspect your wife was murdered.”

Attorneys representing Fernandez seek to have statements made by Fernandez during police interrogation suppressed. The presiding judge ruled that statements made by Fernandez during police interrogations are not admissible, because Fernandez “Miranda rights” to waive his rights to remain silent and consult an attorney were violated. Sexual battery charges are also dropped against Fernandez for lack

Benjamin Ray breaks his journal into two parts: The courtroom conversation and the drawings. In part one of his journal, he provides primary source documents that show the conversation that occurred

The impact of eyewitness testimony upon the members of a jury has been the subject of various research projects and has guided the policies formed by the federal government regarding its competent use in criminal matters (Wells, Malpass, Lindsay, Fisher, Turtle, & Fulero, 2000). Therefore, eyewitness studies are important to understand how

At first a group of people assembled for their specific case-related knowledge, juries increasingly became chosen instead for their ability to make unbiased decisions. Thus, over time these more modern juries came to decisions using only in-court testimonies. With this change came the danger of using hearsay as evidence, and laws were put into effect to minimize this danger. At first, hearsay was given a certain value based on the circumstances of the statements, and later it was given restricted admittance; finally, it was made altogether inadmissible with the Hearsay Rule, with only a limited number of exceptions. (Morgan, 1948).

6. Winston is at lunch when the message on the telescreen relates the good news about

A: Before the game, Winston, suffering from nervousness, was telephoned by a fellow player who told him that Winston had several plays to revise before the game.

Juror 4 is able to remain calm and composed throughout the most stressful of situations. While Juror 10 exhibits racial outbursts; “They get drunk”, “That's the way they are!”, “VIOLENT!”, “These people are dangerous. They're wild. Listen to me. Listen.” Juror 4 sat through this entire scene without saying a word. It is only until Juror 10’s monologue is finished that Juror 4 speaks, calmly asking Juror 10 to “Shut [his] filthy mouth.” Juror 4 never discredits or implies anything towards the defendant and is always careful of what he says. After Juror 10’s tirade, Juror 4 tries to soften the impact created by 10; “Slums are potential breeding grounds for criminals.” He never attacks or hypes the situation at hand. He draws around ‘potential’ possibilities. Juror 4 initially had his doubts at the start of the case but was the only character that overcame his predisposition based on the analysis of facts and evidence. Rose’s character and only this character had the intelligence, confidence and persistence to keep his head in the tense moment Juror 10 created.

Funny I didn’t think of it before. I guess you try to forget those things. Anyone who’s ever used a switch knife would never have stabbed downward. You don’t handle a switch knife that was. You us it underhand,” (Rose, 25). This helps convince some of the other jurors to change their vote to not guilty. His contribution of information made the jurors think more about their vote. His character grows from being meek to being an important factor in the result of the case being a fair trial. There is still other prejudice that made one juror still vote guilty.

Defendant: Oh yes. You see "I get positively angry with the impertinence of it and the