The personalities involved only inflamed the situation presented within the Scopes Trial. Darrow, on multiple occasions, was seen as punishing, especially when questioning Bryan on the Bible. An author on Outlook commented, “Darrow’s cross-examination of Bryan was a thing of immense cruelty” (50), and he often went above and beyond what he needed to in order to prove a point. The two men believed their purposes within the trial were to rip each other apart. Regardless of the final verdict, they both claimed themselves as victor and announced that they were able to shut down their opponent in court. In terms of personalities, the two men were shocking similar. Both Bryan and Darrow were bold, blunt, unapologetic men who firmly, unwaveringly
Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, thank you for your attention today. [Slide #2] I would like to assert that separation is not the end of a relationship. Divorce is not the end of a relationship. Even an arrest is not the end of a relationship. Only death is the end of a relationship. In the case of defendant Donna Osborn, her insistence that ‘“one way or another I’ll be free,”’ as told in the testimony of her friend Jack Mathews and repeated in many others’, indicates that despite the lack of planning, the defendant had the full intent to kill her husband, Clinton Osborn.
Many criminals find many ways to get out of jail or being sentenced to death, what goes through their minds? Pleading insanity means to not be guilty of a crime committed due to reason of mental illness. In many cases criminals get away with pleading insanity, but in the end does it always work out? Bruco Eastwood pleaded insanity and therefore his background, crime, and where he is now will be crucial to Brucos’ insanity plea.
In this passage, the narrator reports--based on Luther's account--what he thinks happened the night George and Cal went to Harvey's house to get revenge on George in Sherwood Anderson's "A Jury Case." At first glance, the reader can easily believe this somewhat interesting, plausible scenario. However, if we analyze the details and "known" facts in the events surrounding the killing of Harvey Groves, we realize that this passage constitutes a "loose" interpretation grounded in a misconception of George. Put simply, there is evidence to suggest that Luther fabricates this scenario to showcase his storytelling abilities.
The execution of John Coffey was powerful. People mocked and jeered and yet the men that were closest to him really knew he was innocent. Even though he...
In a tiny courtroom in the county of Dayton Tennessee, the jury settled into their seats, ready to return the verdict in the most controversial case of the 1920’s, the scopes “monkey” trial. Up to this point, the trial itself had been a media spectacle; the lawyers, the witnesses, even the defendant had become media icons in the commercialism of the twenties. The trial itself was set up to be a media demonstration to challenge the constitutionality of the butler act. This act prohibited the teaching of “any theory that denies the story of the divine creation of man as taught in the bible,” and in particular, the theory of evolution. the American civil liberties union petitioned for a teacher to challenge this statute; john Thomas scopes, the local high school track coach and science teacher accepted the challenge and stood trial for teaching evolution the previous spring. Over the course of the trial Charles Darrow and William Jennings Bryan, the attorneys on the case, debated each other profusely. Eventually Bryan even testified to the truth of the biblical story, even though he was massacred by Darrow upon examination. Despite all that the trial stood for, the most lasting aspect of the trial was that it brought the media into the courtroom, and the courtroom into the daily life of the American citizen.
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.
“they all had the same face. All of them!.... They all gave orders, they all shot! All of them!”(Fink, page 1265) Nearing the end of her testimony, it can be gathered that the first woman is falling apart. Her sentences become shorter, more direct, and she loses focus on the specific details asked by the prosecutor in favor of focusing on her self determined fact that all of them had shot during the liquidation. “I was afraid…. terribly afraid”(page 1264), the same fear that coursed through her that day was showing its face once again, causing this crack in her testimony. Typically if one’s manner of speaking falls apart like so then their body movements also become more rigid as their voice becomes both louder and shattered. Though Fink did not paint the picture of the scene to us directly, she has done so through the characters speech, and from this picture a young woman is seen. A young woman who, though at first had maintained a semblance of composure, had fallen apart into a fit of panic. Another character who shows us a break in composure is the second man. “tried to
The trial began on July 21, 1925 when John Thomas Scopes challenged Tennessee for teaching creation, and how it is not scientific enough (“A Debate,” 2005). This shows that Scopes wanted to change the teachings of science, which doubt the existence of God. In 1981, the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) had filed against the state of Arkansas for teaching creation years after the Scopes Trials had ended (“Victory Arkansas,” 1982). The statement shows that people still had firm faith that was shown by teaching the true way that all living things were formed through creation despite whether it was illegal or not. One of the most intriguing cases in American history, Edwards vs. Aguillard, when “the Act” was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (“Edwards vs. Aguillard,” 2005). As though many would say this is true, it also doubts the existence of God by trying to execute the creation law that all states had followed before Charles Darwin came up with the theory of evolution. The Scopes Trials played a huge part in the American society, which only made a wrong turn away from God by changing how elementary and secondary schools teach that humans were not created at the form that humans are seen
evidence and the right of a condemned man to ask for testing.("A.B. Butler").He was exonerated by
“The trial was brought to a speedy conclusion. Not only did Judge Evans find the twelve guilty, fine them $100 each, and committed them to jail, but five people in the courtroom who had served as witnesses for the defense arrested. […] The police were then instructed to transfer the seventeen prisoners that night to the county jail”(30).
Throughout the book Capote provides evidence to support the claims made by those who evaluated Perry’s psychological health given by Dr. Jones and Dr. Satten. Capote makes the point to point out the fact that it appears “that by independent paths, both the professional and the amateur analyst reached conclusions not dissimilar” (302). Capote provides another evaluation by Dr. Satten concerning Perry’s mental stability: “when Smith attacked Mr. Clutter he was under a mental eclipse; deep inside a schizophrenic darkness, for it was not entirely a flesh-and-blood man he "suddenly discovered" himself destroying, but "a key figure in some past traumatic configuration’”(302). Dr. Satten puts a name to the symptoms and characteristics discovered by Dr. Jones, stating that Perry has the markings of a paranoid schizophrenic person. This disorder is given traction in Perry’s confession when he said “I didn't want to harm the man. I thought he was a very nice gentleman. Soft-spoken. I thought so right up to the moment I cut his throat" (302). This point is further confirmed in Perry’s conversation with Donald Cullivan when Perry said “they [the Clutters] never hurt me. Like other people. Like people have all my life. Maybe it's just that the Clutters were the ones who had to pay for it" (302). With all of that being said one can efficiently begin to form an understanding of whether the court ruling was
Today is the last day of the trial. We have heard all of the witnesses and now we know that we must deliberate. I know that some of the “witnesses” are liars. Some make valid points and I know without a doubt in my mind that Captain Preston is an innocent man and that his men were provoked. As I listened to the witnesses, here is what I came to believe:
However, juror 3 did not maintain control after discussions with juror 8. For example, when juror 8 made a personal attack on juror 3, juror 3 lost his cool, requiring restraint from the other jurors to the point of yelling, “Let me go! I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him!” (Flouri & Fitsakis, 2007, p.459). His emotional intelligence (Budjac Corvette, 2007, p. 29) was a superior negotiation tactic throughout the deliberation process.
Then on July 21, 1925, John Scopes violated Butler Act, which brings on the “Scopes Monkey Trial” (ProQuest Staff). The “Scopes Monkey Trial” took place in Dayton Tennessee later that year (Pegler). This was the first trial to debate evolution vs. religion. William Jennings Bryan was the prosecution, arguing for religion, and Clarence Darrow was the defense attorney, arguing for evolution (Pegler). Bryan believed that the Earth is about 4,145 years old (Pegler). Clarence Darrow, however, suggested that there were people in China about 5,000 years ago (Pegler). In December 1970, the last ban of teaching evolution was overturned (ProQuest Staff). This was 45 years after the “Scopes Monkey Trial.” This trial played a major role in changing the viewpoints of people and overturning the ban teaching evolution in
Throughout Gale’s initial interview with Bitsy the audience is returned to this time of his debate on capital punishment with Governor Hardin on local TV Program ‘The Batter’s Box’. Hardin is characterised as a calm yet often muddled character. This is presented to the audience when Gale quotes Hardin saying “What did Ghandi say about that? The old law of an eye for an eye leaves us all blind.” Hardin disagrees with Gale stating that it’s “fuzzy liberal thinking”, this is when the audience learns that Hardin actually quoted this in a previous campaign. Showing the audience Hardin has contradicted himself in a bid to defend capital punishment. Gale however is characterised as an intelligent yet hot headed man. This is shown through the way he refutes Hardin’s arguments easily until he essential let his ego get in the way and became carried away. This scene is particularly crucial in understanding Gale’s motivations. Towards the end of the debate Hardin asks Gale to “Nam...