Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Reliability of witnesses
Reliability of witnesses
Reliability of witnesses
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Reliability of witnesses
Defense for twelve angry men - Ladder Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defense, a 19 year old boy Carl Gallagher is being wrongly accused for the homicide of his father. After hearing the prosecution's statement your mind can be persuaded as to why Carl could be guilty, but he is not guilty. The evidence shown by the prosecution is not a substantial foundation for the whole case to set it self upon. Think of a man who would kill his own father. Now does that man fit the representation and story of the young man Carl? For me certainly not. See through the empty spaces and realize those spaces are necessary for the proper functioning of a young adult. Carl Gallagher has lived a rigorous life. With his mom not being in the picture most of his life and his dad not being the best spotter for him, a young boy can only be expected to be accused of this crime. But should his backround be held straight against him, or should it be used to support him. Being born into the slums helps you have tough skin as you grow up. You have to learn to protect yourself from the crime filled streets. Carl chose to teach himself to fight with knives. Since going to reform school when he was 15, Carl …show more content…
On the night of the crime Carl bought a knife , keep in mind he has been exposed to knifes for years now. The store worker who sold Carl the knife said it was very unique which can intrigue a frequent knife user, but was the employee just trying to make another sale? Carl, not noticing, bought the knife but later lost it when it fell out of his pocket. The knife was later found at the crime scene with no fingerprints matching his. Since this case began, a private investigation went on and it was proved there were similar knives at the same place he had originally bought the knife from. This evidence points in the right direction as to why the knife found at the crime scene could not be
This report is on a movie called, “12 Angry Men.” The movie is about 12 men that are the jury for a case where a young man is being accused of killing his father. A major conflict that is very obvious is the disagreement on whether the young boy was guilty or innocent. After court when all of the men sat down to begin their discussion Courtney B. Vance (#1) Took charge and respectfully was now the leader. He asked what everyone’s votes were and all of the men except for Jack Lemmon (#8) voted the young man was guilty. Because Jack was the odd one that chose differently than the rest of the men, all of the other Jures, were defensive about the evidence just because they were all so confused. Courtney B. Vance took charge once again and calmly stated that everyone has their rights and lets have everyone explain the reasons why they thing the child is guilty or not guilty. Ossie Davis (#2) explained why he voted guilty. While explaining this he was very calm and wise. HE handled conflicts in the same way. Next was George C. Schott (#3) He also voted guilty. George was very st...
The prosecuting attorney holds the burden of proof and has to prove that Aaron is completely guilty and does not exist third party or other possible explanation of the murder. If the jury has a reasonable doubt about it, Vail and his client Aaron will have won the case. Therefore, Vail’s goal is to place an element of reasonable doubt on the
The assumed murder weapon received improper testing, and DNA found on the knife proved unreliable. No blood was discovered on the knife
This is a problem in which it is possible that we can make mistakes with our own observations, making the testimony of an individual witness not always viable in terms of critical thinking. The second statement on the other hand is a poor inference that concludes that the defendant is guilty without considering all the evidence that exists. Altogether, this film has several critical thinking statements that are both used correctly and
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this case is about Michael Goodman whom has been charged for statutory rape.Growing up, Michael had a rough childhood. His mother had him at a very young age with no support. Him and his mother lived in a car for 4 year and wandered from house to house for another 2 years. At a very young age, Michael was exposed to a variety of drugs. It was not until his 10th birthday when his mother remarried He then became an older brother and his life stabilized for a while. Michael, alongside with his family moved into a beautiful home in Palm Springs, CA. Michael was your average teenager. He was the quarterback of the football team, he did community service, and even had his own part time job at a local fast food restaurant. Michael's mother reported no trouble at school whatsoever. He seemed as if he hadn his act together considering he had just turned 18 two weeks prior to the incident. Michael had a girlfriend whom he had been dating for 2 years and 7 months. Emma Taylor was 2 months younger than michael, hoever they were still in the same grade level. These two lovers started dating when they were approximately 15 years of age. They had an on and off relationship over the past 2 years. The parents however were not aware of this relationship because Emma’s parents were extremely strict. Emma and Michael continued
It says that a mother killed her daughter. The jury states that they have all the evidence they needed but is still not enough to prove that the mother is guilty with murder. The defendant's lawyer says that she didn't kill her daughter because the daughter was far from the incident and that the mothers driving was pretty bad. The jury found her innocent but at the same time the mother was counted for lying to
Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.
The term groupthink in this report is defined as, the social psychological phenomenon that results in groups during pressure situations. This social psychology theory is broken down into eight signs. Illusion of invulnerability, Collective rationalization, Belief in inherent morality, Stereotyped views of out-groups, Direct pressure on dissenters, Self-censorship, Illusion of unanimity, Self-appointed “mindguards”. According to research conducted by Irving Janis, there are three conditions to groupthink. The first, "high group cohesiveness" which is the direction for a group to be in unity while working towards a goal, or to satisfy the emotional needs of its members. Secondly, the structural faults such as insulation of the group, lack of norms and central leadership, in addition social background of group members. The third, situational context includes the circumstances of the groups meeting, social roles and expected behavior. This notion is exemplified during the movie, "12 Angry Men". The purpose of this essay is to examine the movie content to display the groupthink symptoms in place. Groupthink consists of eight major factors that occur during the film's scenes, as the twelve men debate a premeditated murder court case. All of the factors continue to rise as the jury discusses the young man's fate. During the film, a unanimous vote must be reached, despite this one man refuses to vote guilty. In 1957 the Orson Welles directed film opens as the judge explains the case and its severity. Soon after the group forms as the 12 men enter the jury discussion room. During these scene frames, the case evidence is explained. As the men talk they give details of an old man living beneath the boy testified, that he heard a fight, stat...
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, first I would like to start by thanking you for your service. We are gathered here today to discuss the murder of Lennie Small committed by George Milton. Over the past two weeks, the evidence I have gathered suggests that Mr. Milton murdered Mr. Small out of mercy. Although both sides share conflicting evidence, I am here to prove to you that the prosecutor’s reasons for the acts committed by Mr. Milton are not justified.
The jury in trying to let the defendant go considered if there were any circumstances that would provide say as a self-defense claim to justify this horrific crime of murder of two people named Mr. Stephan Swan and Mr. Mathew Butler. Throughout the guilt/innocent phase, the jury believes not to have heard convincing evidence the victims were a threat to the defendant nor a sign the defendant was in fear for his life before he took the victims’ lives.
a) Juror Three argued that the switchblade knife was swung down and in, which was ideal for the defendant considering he was shorter than his father. Juror Three stated, “‘Down and in. That’s how I’d stab a taller man in the chest and that’s how it was done.’” (Rose 61). This quote basically accounts for Juror Three’s beliefs with handling the knife.
“Courage - a perfect sensibility of the measure of danger, and a mental willingness to endure it.” Courageous people understand the danger that they face when they act how they do. That is what courage is all about. Many historical events occur due to people having the courage to do what they think is right, or because of those who use their courage to do what they want. Having the courage to stand alone in one’s beliefs may be one of the hardest thing a person can do.
In viewing 12 Angry Men, we see face to face exactly what man really is capable of being. We see different views, different opinions of men such as altruism, egoism, good and evil. It is no doubt that human beings possess either one or any of these characteristics, which make them unique. It is safe to say that our actions, beliefs, and choices separate us from animals and non-livings. The 20th century English philosopher, Martin Hollis, once said, “Free will – the ability to make decisions about how to act – is what distinguishes people from non-human animals and machines 1”. He went to describe human beings as “self conscious, rational, creative. We can fall in love, write sonnets or plan for tomorrow. We are capable of faith, hope and charity, and for that matter, of envy, hated and malice. We know truth from error, right from wrong 2.” Human nature by definition is “Characteristics or qualities that make human beings different from anything else”. With this said, the topic of human nature has been around for a very long time, it is a complex subject with no right or wrong answer. An American rabbi, Samuel Umen, gave examples of contradictions of human nature in his book, Images of Man. “He is compassionate, generous, loving and forgiving, but also cruel, vengeful, selfish and vindictive 3”. Existentialism by definition is, “The belief that existence comes before essence, that is, that who you are is only determined by you yourself, and not merely an accident of birth”. A French philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, is the most famous and influential 20th - century existentialist. He summed up human nature as “existence precedes essence”. In his book, Existentialism and Human Emotions, he explained what he meant by this. “It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will be something, and he himself will have made what he will be 4”. After watching 12 Angry Men, the prominent view on human nature that is best portrayed in the movie is that people are free to be whatever they want because as Sartre said, “people create themselves every moment of everyday according to the choices they make 5”.
Wilfred a retired soldier saw perpetrators during the perpetrators were changing cars and informed to the police. In here I will clarify each potential evidences of the crime and explain of the application of the identified forensic procedure to the facts of the case. One of the perpetrators cuts his hand when trying to drag of the witness in the crime scene.
Guilty or not guilty is the key question found stuck in the head of any juror on a murder case. It seems like such a simple question, but the twelve jurors for a murder case of a boy who may have killed his father takes the question to a whole new level. The behaviors of these twelve men are quite unique when looking at them psychologically. They can be determined by a numerous number of psychological phenomena. Some specific phenomena that can be shown using incidences throughout the movie of 12 Angry Men are conformity, stereotyping, memory, personality, and sensation and perception.