Why Is Morgan Dexter Guilty

Later I asked secondary questions, which gave details of the events in question, the questions that I asked my witness was done so it could confirm the facts of the situation. Furthermore, I am not supposed to ask any leading questions (a question that contains the desired answer) because it the witness will either have to say “yes” or “no” to what the lawyer is asking. In this case there was circumstantial evidence, which showed that the accused is most likely the only one who could have committed the criminal offence due to the indirect evidence present, Tisi not wanting to go to jail when Dwayne pulls out a knife this is understandable for Dwayne’s character since he had been in and out with the police and since Tisi wanted to go to college he knew that he was going too far. Also when playing the role of the lawyer I was making sure that the witness’s testimony is credible (the fact or quality of being believable or reliable) by repeatedly asking to recall things that they heard or saw, if the witness is not able to repeat the same information it can weaken either side's case. Moreover, during jury selection both the defence and Crown have the ability to reject jurors with no specific reason (peremptory challenge), though this was not done in any of the mock trials in an actual law trial this would have happened. All in all, as a Crown attorney it was my job to represent society and have the burden of proving the guilt of the accused, opportunity to present evidence and question the other’s witnesses and can also reject prospective

In the past, the jury learned from the forensic scientists’ testimony; but now, they’re learning from television and a lot of reality shows. Consequently, what they’re learning is not necessarily what is actually done (Honeycutt). However, those jurors who watch criminal investigation television shows do believe that what they’re seeing on TV is what does go on in real life and they expect to see it in court. This is because, according to Shelton, “the more frequently jurors watched a given program, the more accurate they perceived it to be.”

The criminal trial process aims to provide justice for all those involved, while it succeeds in the majority of cases, it effectiveness is influenced and reduced by certain factors. These include the legal representation involved in a case and the availability of legal aid, the capacity of the jury assessing the trial, the credibility of scientific evidence and the impact of social media on the trial process. Due to such flaws the criminal trial process is not always an effective means of achieving justice.

Her trial, which started 10 months after the murders, was lead by what towns’ people called the “dream team” of lawyers. The jury had 12 men on it that believed that she was not guilty because after they showed her the skull of her father in court, she fainted, and because she was a girl. They thought that no girl was capable of committing such a crime.

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.

Another very important juror in the jury room was Juror 9. Juror 9 was a fair man. He voted not

During the first trial, the fact that McCormick confessed to the crime was too much for the jury to come to a conclusion that McCormick was not guilty. A juror in the first trial, Anita Jinette, stated, “Mr. McCormick’s reputation as a liar was too important for us to believe his testimony that he was innocent, we basically had nothing but his confession.”

Document D analysis • 1. agree with acquittal- Jose Baez, Joe Adamson….disagree- Angela Wright, Janine Gonzalez, Lawson Lamar • 2. Because the body of Caylee Anthony was found months after she had died, it was impossible to tell exactly how she died. These facts made the prosecution’s case of proving guilt much more difficult. Document D analysis • 3.

First of all, if you do not know Dexter is a television show about a man named Dexter who is a serial killer that lives a unique life. He works for Miami Metro Police Department and lives a pretty normal life, except for the fact that he is a killer. He has a wife, Rita and three kids, however his wife ends up getting brutally murdered. Later in the show he gets a girlfriend, Hannah, who plays a huge role. He lived the perfect cover life for his killings. But between seasons one through eight many events partake changing the way he has to go about killing. Even with the given circumstances one thing that never changes is the code. The code is a set of rules about how, when, and why to kill. The code states to only kill who deserves to be

The criminal trial process is an interesting process that takes place in Courtrooms all across the United States and throughout the globe. This study intends to set out the various steps in the criminal trial process in the American justice system. A trial is described as a "legal forum for resolving individual disputes, and in the case of a criminal charge, it is a means for establishing whether an accused person is legally guilty of an offense. The trial process varies with respect to whether the matter at issue is civil in nature or criminal. In either case, a jury acts as a fact-finding body for the court in assessing information and evidence that is presented by the respective parties in a case. A judge presides over the court and addresses all the legal issues that arise during the trial. A judge also instructs the jury how to apply the facts to the laws that will govern in a given case." (3rd Judicial District, 2012)

Although a lot of evidence was really convincing, he tried to prove it unconvincing and use sarcasm to convince other jurors otherwise. One example of #7 using sarcasm would be this quote: "Why don't we have them run the trial over..." I think this quote clearly shows that juror #7 is trying to convince other jurors, that court's evidence proves the young man is guilty without reasonable doubt. Also to break #8's spirit he used name calling, another kind of peer pressure. I believe this is a very good example: "The boy is guilty pal, like the nose on your face." The third and last juror I picked was #8, he was not using sarcasm, nor was he muscle flexing, he was using reasonable argument, which helped him convince all the jurors that the young man was innocent. He did not try to convince anybody by screaming at him, on the contrary he tried to go over all the evidence, and he was using intelligent thinking, like trying to calculate exact times, and figure out the correct position of the switch-blade in the chest of the father. He was also trying to recreate a situation to see if indeed one of the witnesses on the stand was lying.

Two contributing factors to the wrongful conviction of Anthony Smith are eyewitness identification and the adversarial process. The adversarial process relies on the skills and resources of the defense and prosecution. Eyewitness identification includes evidence from a witness who has seen the event and can pick out a perpetrator. In this case, some reasons Smith was wrongfully convicted was because of the adversarial process, he hired a private lawyer Akim Gurdy, but could only pay $3,000 of the $10,000 they were originally supposed to. Gurdy then stopped investigating the case for this reason, and Smith was given an appointed attorney who lacked the capacity to help him with his case. Another reason to Smith’s wrongful conviction was due to eyewitness identification errors.

In our 3rd block Ransom Red Chief Trial, we had very good points of view from both the prosecution team and the defense team. The Prosecution seemed to have more evidence that Bill and Sam had intentions on kidnapping the young boy. Along with the Defense had some good evidence but,of course, it wasn’t enough. The Defense team continued to repeat the same thing and at one point, I personally felt as if they weren’t on Bill and Sam’s side. One time, Bill admitted to kidnapping the kid. Red Chief’s father, Mr.Dorset, kind of threw his son under the bus. If you were ever wondering how we could fix our trial, we could definitely learn our parts better and find out what role we should play. The Prosecutors won the case, mainly because they had more

Like the OJ Simpson trial – the jury loved Racine. To them she was a star the way she treated her mother, her stepmother and her sister. In the most-strange case known in history – Rebecca and Gladys should not have told lawyers that at one they had viewed their capture as a vacation telling the jury they had much more difficult challenges at home than they did vacationing with Racine. That was a mistake. They testified seeing Juice rape Racine in front of them and knew Racine had nothing to do with their kidnapping by the way she acted when Juice told Racine they were there. Under cross examination, Gladys had to tell the truth. She told the court Racine would have let them go but juice would not let her. Gladys admitted Racine took them shopping closing down Nordstrom; Gladys talked about loving the meals the movies they’d seen and despite her son’s death Gladys had to tell the judge that Racine reminded her of the gorgeous Scarlett O’Hara. Gladys said when she got home she figured that it was Racine’s idea to let them go because she knew about that laundry truck. In lieu of her son’s horrible murder – the attorney was intent on Gladys telling the truth. Rebecca testified they’d be able to escape because she felt that Racine left them go intentionally. They told the jury Racine could have easily routed them from the spa to a secured area and didn’t. The jury only took a half hour to say not guilty on all charges for Racine. They asked for footage of her mother’s funeral where Tramaine sang “Going up Yonder” they saw how much Racine loved her mother and what she did for her mother. It was a unanimous decision to let her go. Once Racine, was free her sister and father raced up to hug her not knowing another snake named Carol was intent on Racine going to jail for murder. Carol had been sitting in the back of the court waiting to trump Racine for what she had

My initial vote in the Reginald Chase case was of not guilty. According to my perception, the evidence presented was not enough to convict him of murder. Vast majority of the group “A” members were inclined to acquit Chase for the same reason. The deliberation turned out interesting and somehow tense when one of the jurors decided to vote guilty. Although many group members tried to make him reflect on his decision presenting strong arguments, this seemed to irritate him and cling to his decision. However, the votes and arguments of the majority reinforced my final decision of not guilty.