Scottsboro Trials Essay

Attorney for the Defense, Charles Darrow, in his closing statement in the defense of Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb begs for even the slightest amount of sympathy from the judge. He does so in hopes that the teenage boys may one day live free lives and that their families have a sense of optimism for the future. Darrow begins his closing statement by creating a grievous mood surrounding the situation so that his audience may take pity. He uses pathos as his main strategy to tug at the heartstrings

possible reform is making it more difficult for the parties to object to certain jurors. To rectify the issue of a lack of competence in juries, a solution is to expand the kinds of cases that a judge-only trials. At present, for example, complicated tax and fraud cases require a judge-only trial. A reform is to make it possible for further kinds of cases to be added. An alternative reform is to allow an independent lawyer to explain issues to the jury outside of court sessions, rather than relying

During the English middle ages law often took on the form of an ordeal. An ordeal is a method of trial in which the accused was given a physical test that could only be met successfully if he or she was "innocent" in the eyes of God. I personally feel that trial by ordeal was an unjustified way of determining guilt. Trial by ordeal usually consisted of a rather brutal, and often deadly test, determining guilt or innocence. For example, if a person was accused of being a witch, they would be burned

Amanda Knox was a young student from Washington who got stuck in the Italian courts system when she was accused of murdering her roommate, Meredith Kercher. This case is a big controversy because how the Italian court system and the United States court system differs. The evidence in this case changed the course of the convection because of how the evidence was collected and looked at. In the end Amanda Knox was able to come home with charges dropped, even after her appeal and the courts appeal (Docuworld

One of the fundamental themes in the film 12 Angry Men is the idea of reasonable doubt. "Reasonable doubt", as explored in the film, is the concept that you should not vote guilty if there is "reasonable doubt", no matter how sure others on the jury are. Often when an individual does doubt a pre-conceived thought, similar to the blame of the defendant in this case, they are frequently met with hate and cynicism. 12 Angry Men emphasizes the importance of fighting for one’s beliefs. One of the possibilities

believed was a very odd trial. Everyone’s opinions about the trial constantly changing, one minute you’re able to clearly see that he is innocent but the next trial it is very easy to see how he is guilty. After taking the time to listen to the podcasts and hearing all the evidence that was found versus the evidence that was brought up in court, I feel Adnan is innocent. There is only one piece of “evidence” that places him at the crime, based off of what was brought into the trial for evidence, and that

In the movie “12 Angry Men,” directed by Sidney Lumet, are different techniques or argument used by the jurors, but specifically there are certain instances where the Jurors involved in the trail use Analogical reasoning to get there point across and persuade other peoples’ decisions. “Analogical reasoning is one of the types of reasoning’s that is used a lot” (Hurley) and most of the time we do not even notice when it is being used because it is that commonly used. Furthermore, “It is reasoning

Grand Jury The origin of the Grand Jury is traced back to the Assize of Clarendon in 1166, an Act of Henry II of England. In which the English law began to transform together from the recourse to trial by combat. It took quite some time to repeal the trial by battle, it was officially annulled in 1819. They practiced that 12 "good and lawful men" from different villages, would become informants, who would each take an oath that they would provide faithful duties, and inform the justices whether

3. There were many opposing arguments in the case. The defendants side was that the Africans were the ones who were being tried for murder. The Africans were the ones who got kidnapped, so they wanted to go back home and be free. The other side of the case was the Montez and Ruiz side. They were accusing the Africans of murder. The Africans had murdered many of the ship workers, so they were being tried for murder. So, the Africans did murder many people, so they had to be tried. 4. There was a

hopefully, we shall overcome” (BrainyQuote.com). There is a sense around the world today that racism is gone and that we are in a new era. However, this is not true; racism can be seen just as prevalent today as in the past. There are people being put on trial unfairly because of racist mindsets in the judicial system. In these situations, there are some people that are too quick to assume that it must be this one individual with the only backing for their opinion is that the color of their skin is different