Was Bernie Miller's The Definition Of Self Defense Or Self-Defense?

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.

The film “12 Angry Men” gives the audience insight as to how jury deliberations work. The film follows 12 jurors throughout the process of finding the defendant’s sentencing. The jury is overseeing a case surrounding a young boy who is charged with the murder of his father. It was interesting to see the process of this paired with the way each character’s vote had an effect on each of the other juror’s decisions. The film “12 Angry Men” portrays a realistic fluctuation of stances in a room of jurors as a whole and individually based upon the prior experiences and ethics of each juror.

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.

On August 2, 2014, a man by the name of Harry Kumar was shot dead by Stephanie Hardee. That much is known. What is not known is whether Stephanie Hardee’s intent was malicious or not. The prosecution, being led by Hanna Kumar, the daughter of the decendent, alleges that her grandmother, Stephanie Hardee murdered Harry Kumar with “deliberate premeditation and malice” (Mock Trial, 30). Meanwhile the defense, being led by Stephanie Hardee, tells a story of how Mr. Kumar was abusive to Hanna and that Stephanie Hardee shot Harry only in self-defense, and ergo is not guilty of premediated murder. Both sides pose very valid arguments, with plenty of supporting evidence, and the case boils down to a simple question,

The heart of the American Judicial System is the determination of the innocence or guilt of the accused. At the beginning of the play, the jurors all feel that the man is guilty for murdering his father and they all wanted to convict him without carrying out a detailed discussion. The persistence of juror eight, however, plays a significant role in ensuring that the correct and fair verdict is delivered. The judicial system maintains that the defendant does not have an obligation to prove his innocence. The fact is not clear to everyone as Juror 8 reminds Juror 2 about it. The fact is a key element of the judicial system and assists in the process of coming up with a verdict. The defendant is usually innocent until proven guilty. Another element of the judicial system that comes out in the play is for a verdict to stand it must be unanimous. Unanimity ensures that the

Several pairs of eyes trail the prosecutor as he puts forth his reasons as to why the defendant should be guilty. Several pairs of ears listen intently in a trance like mode, also cautious of every detail. The prosecutor presents the facts with great gusto, painting a picture of the defendant in a bad light. Once he is done, the defendant’s lawyer takes the stage and he too, with great effort, puts forth reasons as to why his client is innocent. In the end, when everything is said and done and it time for the verdict, only one voice answers to the court clerk out of the 12 men and women. These 12 people are the jurymen and they play an equally important role as the lawyers and judges of a court trial. In fact, a jury is the sole decider, based

All that being said, if I, as a judge, were to be presented with a murder case where the defendant is accused of killing his

The courthouse was crowded, all seats were taken and many were standing in the back. It was silent, no one spoke, not even a baby cried out. There was the Judge sitting in the front of the room, the defendant, the solicitor, and the jury. I was a member of the jury that day. Everyone knew the truth, the defendant was innocent, and the evidence that was established was supportive and clear. The jury’s decision however, was not based on evidence, but on race. A jury is supposed to put their beliefs aside and make a decision based on the information given during the trial. Jury members must do their duty and do what is right. I tried to do what was right, but all the other members of the jury were blind. They chose to convict because of skin

Imagine getting a knock from the police officer at three o’clock in the morning, saying that your son has been murdered. Your son was murdered due to a senseless act of violence. He and this other guy had got into it because your son looked “suspicious”. They get to fighting and suddenly the guy pulls out a gun and shoots your son dead. The guy tells police officer he felt as if his life was in danger during the altercation, and he shot your child in self-defense. A month later you all are in court waiting on the jury’s decision to see if your son’s killer will be guilty with murder or innocent with self-defense because he was standing his ground. “All rise, jury can you please give your verdict.” “We, the jury, find Mr. Nicholas O’Connor

“One of the distinctive features of criminal justice in the United States is trial by a jury of one’s peers” (Bohm & Haley, 2011). This right is claimed and protected under the authority of the Sixth Amendment, as such, an individual’s right to a trial by an impartial jury is constitutional and must be maintained and safeguarded from infringement. Sadly, current society has allowed Constitutional rights to become secondary in lieu of an increased sense of security or a matter of convenience. Several rebuttals can be made to the arguments against a trial by jury.

Life and death in their hands but they don’t care, do you think justice is a joke? In the play of 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose, there are 12 jurors who have to make a life or death decision of a 19 year old boy because he supposedly stabbed his father all the jurors believe he was guilty. Until one motivated juror actually looked closely into the facts. It's the jury's responsibility to analyze and dig much deeper into the defendant's case, its unfair to put an end to a man's life just because the jury did not care to take a closer look for a reasonable doubt. But they are too lazy and just want’s to get threw it very quick because they got something better to do.

. After of series of questions, “The judge felt puzzled. Here was a clear case of homicide, but whether it was manslaughter or premeditated murder was impossible to tell.” (215)

As stated,”They tend to decide based on legal nuances and subtler understandings of the law than would ever occur to the average juror.”()If i were to choose a bench trial it would be difficult to convince the judge that i had no intention in killing the store clerk. A judge is more experienced with cases as the one i was involved in therefore they are with knowledge and have a better understanding in the criminal laws. Where as the juries are not as experienced and go by the defendants story. As a result, one of the most important factors are the juries passion. As stated,”So a particularly compelling story about how a victim suffered injury or harm at the hands of the defendant can lead to a much heftier award than a dispassionate judge would grant.”() Basically it means that the jury are all different people with different beliefs and would most likely vote for the most reasonable

Floundering through stacks of beige manila folders, I gathered yellow papers containing facts and statistics. With anxiety and nervousness as my adversaries, I articulately spoke point after point against the other team’s arguments. Echoing off of the walls of the room, I declared “next,” “case,” “off case,” and “DA” after reading my evidence. Within a team, I was debating public policy with another team of people in hopes of persuading the ever-so-quiet judge to rule in favor of my plan over the other team. As the clock ticked for the eighth time, I ended my lengthy speech and announced, “ready for cross examination.” The opponents stood up and attempted to find holes in my logic through extensive inquisition. Yet, I did not relent; with

Another major source of conflict is the other jurors’ disinterested approach to the trial. Almost every juror approaches Juror #8’s insistence on a not guilty vote with avoidance. They care little about the case and do not grasp its gravity,