I entered the jury deliberation not guilty, and I left not guilty. I remained not guilty despite the pressure from my fellow jurors to “compromise” at a second degree murder verdict (which was not a compromise from my perspective at all) or to go all the way up to a first degree murder charge. I thought that this case was an easy “not guilty.” It definitely was not.
The first thing I wanted to do was to see where people were at, so we all went around and said what we believed the verdict was. We were immediately divided by gender (except Shane). 5 males vs 3 females and 1 male. This was the first thing I pointed out when it was my turn to speak. I said, “Isn’t it weird that we split by gender like this? I think that the girls on this jury
…show more content…
Stevens did not have BWS. The information I took away from this witness is that Mrs. Stevens didn’t plan to get away with killing him or tried to pretend that she didn’t kill him. She immediately called 911 and was completely complicit with the police when they showed up to inspect the crime scene. Mrs. Hughes also said that BWS is a proven, scientifically, to be a syndrome that allows it to be in the woman’s capacity to do something like this/act out like this against her abuser. Lastly, the most important piece of information that was brought up constantly in the deliberation room: her statement. I took that statement with a grain of salt. It was said that she received no breaks, was extremely disoriented, and did not even write the statement herself. She was prompted by the police officer who was asking her questions to get the type of statement she wanted from Mrs. Stevens. I do not trust Mrs. Stevens state of mind as she was answering those questions, if she signed the document. A woman who just killed her abuser of 5 years is in no shape to be testifying/answering questions at this capacity. However this argument went unnoticed by my fellow peers in the deliberation room. They all thought she did this out of “anger” and not out of fear so that disqualifies her from having BWS. This made no sense to me. Why are anger and fear mutually exclusive? Why can’t I be brutally angry at the man who has tied me up, choked me, kicked me, punched me, and almost killed me several times? Why am I no longer a victim? They thought this could never be self defense because with self defense you must feel fear and nothing else. And they were getting pretty irrational and stubborn at this point so it became futile in the last ten minutes to convince them
When Mathews heard Clinton begin to yell and hurt Donna through the phone, he called the police. When the police arrived, they noted the disheveled state of the house and the accused’s head injury. Note that, according to Dr. Kim Lenore, a BWS expert, the accused was at the fourth stage of BWS, in which the woman has already realized that she is not at fault for the abuse she is receiving and begins to realize that there is a way out and that she can find it. At this point, however, the defendant lied to the patrol officer and claimed that her injuries resulted from a fall. Dr. Lynn Johnson, Yale Law professor and psychology expert, agrees that this “excuse … is characteristic of the guilt stage. The defense can’t have it both ways.” If Donna had really been undergoing BWS in the way that she and the defense’s expert witness, Dr. Lenore, had claimed, she would’ve had no qualms against telling the police the truth and having Clinton arrested for domestic abuse. She didn’t do this because she had already planned her own way
Most of the case law involving female offenders depend on the Supreme Court of Canada's verdict in Lavallee, which accepted proof that an offender had encountered violence elicited by the victim, , Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS), as applicable to the problem of self-defense. In the Lavallee case, proof was disclosed demonstrating that the offender had been exposed to years of abuse owing to the victim, and she was acquitted of murder because she had acted in self-defense.
“Not Guilty” doesn’t mean the person didn’t commit the crime, it just mean that when the person committed the crime he/she could not tell right from wrong. I believe that Andrea profile does not fit the profile of legally insane. Yes, Andrea has major mental issues and suffers from many mental diseases, however, at the time of the murder I believe she was at the right state of mind. Under the definition of law a person can only be declared insane if at the time of the crime the person was unable to understand right from wrong and knew the consequences of his/her actions. She knew that it was legally wrong to kill another human being thus waiting to do it when her husband was not home who was of solid mind. She also planned out which child to kill first because of them alerting the other children and risking them escaping. She was found guilty but ended up having a second trial which she was found not guilty by reason of insanity. According to a juror, during the time of the Yates case, the Insanity Law in the state of Texas stated, "As a result of severe mental disease or defect, did not know that his/her conduct was wrong", this would be changed to, "as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, the defendant was unable to appreciate the nature and
In all criminal cases presented in the courts of the United States, a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The law requires the jury to release the defendant unless it is fully convinced of the defendant's guilt. Many times it may be difficult for a jury to come to such a significant conclusion. This is clearly evident in the movie 12 Angry Men. At first, each juror is convinced of his verdict except one. Yet of those who are convinced that the boy on trial is guilty, all change their vote except one.
...ted by peer pressure. At the end of the play, after all the other jurors joined up with Juror 8, Juror 3 was the only one who still voted ‘guilty’. This time, Juror 3’s perseverance collapsed and he finally voted on ‘not guilty’. Juror 3 is obviously not as brave as Juror 8 as to stand up for his singular thought on the crime. A reason for this might be because he doesn’t have the intelligence to use good arguments to prove his stance.
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.
...t I do not think that the evidence presented is enough for a conviction to sentence any man or woman to death.
The book Acquittal by Richard Gabriel states, “juries are the best judges in the system. They are not elected, they don't have the high-powered microscope of appellate review or the stern, disapproving-schoolmarm precedent looking over their shoulder, and they have no interest in the outcome of the case.” For this reason, we can come to the conclusion that the use of juries in a trial is the best for all involved in the legal system. While juries, “are the best judges in the system”, lawyers, jury consultants, and jury scientists are the reasons they are viewed this way. It is their job to make sure that not only their client, but everyone has a fair and unbiased trial.Making sure that “the best judges in the system” are fair and unbiased takes a lot of planning, research, and effort. You must research the jurors, understand how they think, what their morals are, and how they would view this case. “It is a constructed reality, cobbled together by shifting memories of witnesses, attorney arguments, legal instructions, personal experiences, and beliefs of jurors.”(Gabriel
It was not a good idea to take a vote without a discussion, because the other jurors do not know other opinions that might change their mind. The eighth juror voted not guilty because he did think about all of the details that happened the night of the murder. It turned out that the jurors had over looked a few
In conclusion, Mrs. Barrett suffered from many years of abuse from her husband. She finally snapped and shot Mr. Barrett, killing him. She did this because in self- defense and beyond reasonable doubt that he would have killed her. She also should be able to claim Battered Woman 's Syndrome because she went through the stages of abuse and meets the qualifications of a battered woman described in Leslie McGuire’s book. In the end, Mrs. Barrett should have Leslie McGuire testify because she is very experienced and widely known, she has heard and counseled people in over 300 cases. . She is a reliable person with good intentions and will only help the case. I hope that you make the right decision today, Thank you.
Growing up as an only child I made out pretty well. You almost can’t help but be spoiled by your parents in some way. And I must admit that I enjoyed it; my own room, T.V., computer, stereo, all the material possessions that I had. But there was one event in my life that would change the way that I looked at these things and realized that you can’t take these things for granted and that’s not what life is about.
Before the jury stands the defendant. There is overwhelming evidence in the favor of the prosecution. The verdict comes back from the jury, not guilty. Why? The defendant is a woman. In our era of equal rights and civil liberties women have made great strides in their advancement and role in society, yet it seems that gender segregates when it comes to crime. There have been countless cases where women and men have been tried for the same crime, yet when it comes to verdict and sentencing, the results don’t necessarily match. If one commits a crime one should be punished accordingly regardless of gender. In our society we seem to have two separate rules for our criminals, one for men and one for women. The key issue is are men and women treated equally by the criminal justice system. Another issue in gender biased sentencing is in its is its severity. Are women sentenced heavier for certain crimes then men.
The jurors had several conflicts in disagreeing with each other and it didn't help that they would shout over one another. The very first conflict is when juror 8 voted not guilty against the 11 guilty votes. The other 11 jurors don't seem to want to hear this man out; they don't want to hear why he has voted not guilty. Some of these men, jurors 3 and 7, just want to get this case over with so they can get on with their lives. They don't think it is imperative enough to look over the evidence and put themselves in the place of the defendant. They get upset with this man and try to get him to vote guilty.
One surprising fact would be that the case would’ve come to a fast conclusion of a guilty verdict had it not been for Juror number eight disagreeing. He had a firm belief that the kid was innocent that he would stop at nothing to convince the other jurors he had a valid point. Yet, society has greatly changed and to come across someone so influential is rare. For starters, a jury trial is meant to represent the community in which the trial is taking place and it should include an equal amount of diversity compared to the community. Since this case took place in New York, it is impractical to have an all-white male jury today.
A young mother had been dating her boyfriend for a few years before they had a child together. Domestic violence was a standard in their relationship. The mother began to become tired of the fighting, arguing, and accusations. One day, the mother was cooking dinner with her child on her hip. The father had come home and began arguing with her about something trivial. He grabbed the mother’s hair and began hitting her head again the cabinet. The mother reached for a knife and stabbed her boyfriend. Unbeknownst to the mother, at the time, she had cut her child too. When I first received the case, I could not believe that the mother would put her child in danger as she did. It was shocking to me that she thought to pick up the knife and stab someone