William Jordan Trial Summary

On October 28, 2015, in the capital court of the Harris County Criminal Courts at Law, Judge Mark Kent Ellis, who was working on a murder case that happened in late 2013. My first experience when I had entered the court building was through the security area where I had to take all my belongings and place it in a bin before going through the metal detector. After that, I went to the 20th floor where there were some cases that were scheduled to begin. I entered one of the courtrooms and sat down with other students and waited for the attorneys and their clients to enter the courtroom along with Judge Ellis. Around 9:30 AM, Hon. Judge Mark Kent Ellis entered and the case began to take place. Unlike the broadcast that I had seen online, there was no introduction about the case, rather the attorney for the plaintiff started to ask the witness or the plaintiff about the case. The murder case number was not mentioned, but it was between Johnathan Sanchez, the defendant, versus the Plaintiff who was the witness of the case that his name was not

When the trial was coming to an end and the prosecutors were thru asking questions, Judge Richard M. Goul asked the prosecutors if the witness was able to be dismissed. There was a lady who was standing next to her during the entire trial, I was not sure of who she was, but my guess is she was one of the victim’s parent or guardian. The reason I believe this is because once the witness was dismissed, the lady hugged and give her a kiss on the check and they both exited the courtroom as quickly as possible. It was then time for the judge to give the final verdict. He read the penial codes, which the defendant was found guilty on. Once that was done, the judge read that the defendant was given a bail of two hundred billion, three hundred thousand dollars. Although it was a large amount of money, I personally think that the defendant should not have been given the chance of bail.

On October 7th I was present at the courthouse from 8: 45 am-10: 45 am. During that initial visit, I was very nervous; since it is a small courthouse I stood out like a sore thumb. I was “over dressed” in comparison to the other actors that were present, even though I was wearing slacks, an FIU Honor’s Polo, and flats. The Assistant State Attorney was Demetrios Efstratiou who was at least professionally dressed. There was Public Defenders present, but I did not catch their names, nor could I locate them on the Internet. Both gentlemen were dressed professionally as well. The only actor during this visit that was dressed unprofessionally was a private defense attorney Jessica Reilly, who is a partner at one of the bigger firms in Key

The prosecution works to get their guilty verdict while the defense tries to help their clients with their verdicts. In court I listen to both sides argue the Innocence/Guilt of the young woman in question wanted on DWI charges. The honorable judge Pauline Hankins presides over the court and waits patiently for all the evidence to be presented. The prosecution and the defense are set on opposite sides of the courtroom while the jury box and the belief are set next to the judge. Judge Pauline Hankins is in the middle of the courtroom in front of the North Carolina State seal with an office on the right next to the witness stand. Everything that has been said in the court is added to the court record. The court record is a detailed document

Looking back at history we find that many trial cases have been unsolved, one in particular being the William Robinson case which took place in Salt Spring Island British Columbia in 1868. The death of William Robinson, a black man, resulted in the conviction and inherent execution of a Native man named Tshuanahusset (trial name “Tom”). The trial and thereafter death of “Tom” has caused much controversy in historical studies. With many different stories and recollections of said crime it was hard to say what actually happened during 1868 other than “Tom” being convicted as guilty of murder. I am here to prove that based on circumstantial evidence that the evidence that was provided against “Tom” does not beyond a reasonable doubt prove he was

I am reading, To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee. In the chapters 16 through 23 many events happens. At the beginning of the chapters the trail starts and Mayella testifies by saying that Tom ran up behind her and took advantage of her. Later Tom told his side of the story by saying that Mayella invited him in and she tried to kiss him. Mr. Ewell saw them and started to yell at Mayella so he ran off. After the testimonies were over the jury came up with the verdict that Tom is guilty. In this journal, I will be predicting the verdict of the case.

From the article “Former Pediatrician Appeals ‘Waterboarding’ Conviction”, Melvin Morse, a former pediatrician, did not get a fair trial. Similarly, Tom Robinson from To Kill a Mockingbird also did not get a fair trial. A fair trial is a courtroom with an unprejudiced jury that listens to both sides of the situation without being biased. It’s a place where everyone is treated equally despite their looks and race. However, the prejudicial jury knew Tom Robinson is guilty before the trial begins. The jury judge Tom Robinson base on his looks and skin color instead of judging him on his statements. If a white person places himself in Tom Robinson’s shoes, they will realize Robinson is just like them, and he should not be treated like an animal.

The double-murder trial of O.J. Simpson is surely one that will live in infamy. From the controversial “If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit” phrase coined by his superstar attorney Johnnie Cochran to the jaw-dropping verdict of not guilty this case has made its mark in history. In 1994 Nicole Brown-Simpson and Ronald Goldman were found stabbed to death. With no other obvious suspects, Brown-Simpson’s husband Orenthal James Simpson became the object of law enforcement’s suspicion and was charged with the murders. The case was brought to trial

The conflict between whites and blacks had been going on for years. Even after the blacks were freed from slavery the whites never treated them as equals. The story of To Kill A Mockingbird tells of a trial against a white family and a black man Named Tom Robinson. Although Harper Lee, the author of this book, wrote the book making Tom guilty, I believe that in a truly equal world this is how the trial would have gone.

I went to go check in the juror assembly room to check for trials, they only knew of one later on in the criminal court. I went to Judge Samuels courtroom because that is where the trial was going to occur later in the day. When I arrived Judge Samuels was doing arraignments which, I found out were very common in the criminal courts. She would give the defendants who had DUI’s options between time in county jail or community service. One of the cases that stood out was a defendant who needed psych sessions. The defendant had just been given a trial and was found guilty so, they had to sentence her. The defendant was convicted of three counts one of them being assault with a deadly weapon, which happened to be a car.

“Serving on a jury forces a man to make up his mind and declare himself about something. Men don’t like to do that. Sometimes it’s unpleasant.” (Chpt 23, p222)

On the night of Halloween Bob Ewell was murdered, stabbed in the back, with three present witnesses: Arthur Radley, Jem Finch, and Scout Finch. One witness is being tried, Arthur Radley, for the murder of Bob Ewell. Arthur Radley known as Boo Radley to the town never leaves his home but was in the woods to “rescue” the Finch kids when Mr.Ewell gets stabbed with no other witnesses. Maycomb County’s district attorney is charging Mr.Radley with voluntary manslaughter. I sat down with Mayella Ewell to discuss and gain information on her father’s murder and relationship with Mr.Radley. Mayella believes Mr. Radley is guilty of murdering her father “in cold blood” as he took an innocent walk through the woods after the county school’s Halloween pageant.

On November 31, 1934, in the town of Maycomb, Mayella Ewell accused Tom Robinson of Raping her. The story first Developed over a year ago when Mayella first asked Tom to cut up a Chifferobe She would ask tom to come in once in awhile to help her with her work. Tom is a friendly man who was willing to help then Mayella tried to make a move on a black man, which is morally wrong in this society. The father of Mayella Bob Ewell saw this and was disgusted and beat up Mayella. He quickly wanted to put the blame on Tom because of Mayella wrongful actions. When Atticus Finch was questioning Mayella she was blatantly lying. When Atticus Formally addressed Mayella she said “Won’t answer a word you say as long as you keep on mockin’ me,” The way she

To Kill a Mockingbird centres around Tom Robinsons trial. This means that the rest of the book is either the build up or the aftermath of the trial. Harper Lee uses part one of the book to prepare us for the events of the trial and also to set up the atmosphere and the feelings that we will have towards the characters. The main way the author does this is by introducing the themes and motifs that occur throughout the book, there are three main themes throughout the book; Prejudice, Courage and Childhood, these ideas are important during the trial.

The book The Trial Narratives written By, Matthew L. Skinner is a book that represents the Trials throughout the Gospel more in depth. It is published by the WJK (Westminster John Knox Press) in 1978. Throughout this book, it looks closer into what the trials were planning to seek out during that time period, and how it related back to the roman history time. As the reader you find out there is not a difference between the Trials, Narrative books of the NT, the four gospels, and the Acts. All of them had created an intense amount of drama, and action upon the events that show what happened, and emphasize on Jesus, and the powerful events that showed social, and historical points of view.