C. CHARGES
The crime was committed in the archbishop’s apartment and then Aaron was found running away from the scene of the crime with blood all over his clothes. Aaron is charged with first degree murder.
Before the start of the trial, a discovery period was performed, in which both prosecution and defense tried to accumulate evidence. All the forensic evidences were brought up in court by the prosecution. Blood, footprints, fingerprints and other were used to prove that Aaron was guilty.
The blood on his clothes was analyzed and was proven to be the archbishop’s blood. Therefore, the first piece of evidence used by the prosecution is the DNA evidence. In addition, Aaron’s fingerprints were found at the crime scene, as well on the murder
…show more content…
So the motive of the crime was unknown. Therefore, in front of this information, the defense created the idea that there was someone else in the room. Since then, Vail will keep trying to convince the jury that Aaron did not commit the murder, but a third person that was in the room.
Convincing the jury
Convincing the jury is the main purpose of the trial, so make the jury believe that the defense’s story is the correct one. Vail supports his plea by trying to persuade the jury that this third party, supposedly left-handed, could have murdered archbishop Rushman by using gloves and erased his footprints and having left the murder weapon in Aaron’s hand. This view of the facts would prove Aaron’s innocence.
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
…show more content…
This is a technique that “predicts that jurors who are similar to the defendant will empathize and identify with the defendant. Consequently, they will be less likely to convict”. Vail refers to the members of the jury’s children or friends with similar-aged as Aaron. The purpose is to make the members of the jury more sensitive toward Aaron, or at least, increasing the possibility of a reasonable doubt in the case. In addition, Vail wants to take advantage of Aaron’s “boyscout” look and that is why does not want Aaron to talk during the trial until the psychological evaluation is done.
The photos show the scene of the crime, in which archbishop Rushman has been stabbed 78 times and his fingers have been cut off. Therefore, Vail attempts for the court to not show these pictures. These pictures will have a negative impact as they will shock the jurors and will influence the jury’s final decision, since it will be based on a punitive purpose. Taking into account the brutality and sadistic way of dying, the photos can hurt the case and the defense’s strategy.
Expert in psychology
As long as the judge does not allow the defense attorney to begin the trial with a psychological test, Vail looks for an expert in psychology. He needs the expert, in order to properly analyze Aaron’s mental
In this single moment of clarity, he is convinced that the old man is distorting the truth. He says “... He was dragging his left leg and trying to hide it because he was ashamed. I think I know him better than anyone here. This is a quiet, frightened, insignificant old man who has been nothing all his life, who has never had recognition… This is very important. It would be so hard for him to recede into the background…”(page 36) Sharing this argument, juror number nine shifts the direction of the discussion. No longer is he speaking about facts and evidence, but about an emotional connection to an old man who wants to feel important for once in his life. Although he is just assuming this based off of context clues, he manages to affect the other jurors. He manages to question the validity of the old man's testimony by connecting with him at a personal level, and for the most part it's
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.
In this position paper I have chosen Bloodsworth v. State ~ 76 Md.App. 23, 543 A.2d 382 case to discuss on whether or not the forensic evidence that was submitted for this case should have been admissible or not. To understand whether or not the evidence should be admissible or not we first have to know what the case is about.
Juror three wanted so badly for the young boy to be guilty that every time any of the witness’s testimonies were questioned or tested, he would not adhere to the facts. With that being said, he would only believe what everyone else beside the boy told him. When the group tested whether the old man actually heard and witnessed what he did, juror three was quick to say that he didn’t care. He didn’t care about time, logic, or reasoning. The last piece of evidence he had that justified his verdict was that the woman witnessed it. He said if all the other evidence was thrown out that last piece was all they needed. When the jury proved that she could have worn glasses and could have been mistaken, he refused to believe that there was any possibility of a mistake because that would make him have to change his verdict. Therefore, he reverted back to the other evidence then realized he couldn’t because he said to throw away the other
The second juror to vote not guilty is the Fifth Juror. He voted not guilty because the eight juror presented some information about the night of the murder, and he agreed with him.
The defense succeeded at instilling reasonable doubt in the jurors’ minds. A major difference between the defense and prosecution, as stated by Dershowitz, was that the defense relied on factual evidence and scientific experts while the prosecution utilized witnesses that casted a shadow of doubt upon the whole jury (Dershowitz 97). Dershowitz claimed the prosecution knew they had falsities in their case, but kept them in order to win the case (Dershowitz 96). In all, though many people viewed Simpson as a guilty man, the allegations of police perjury and investigative errors allowed the defense to exploit and capitalize on the faults carried out by the prosecution and ultimately implant reasonable doubts in the minds of the jurors.
The evidence discovered during the investigation suggested to the police that OJ Simpson may have had something to do with this murder and they obtained an arrest warrant. The investigators believed that they “knew” OJ Simpson committed the murders. His lawyers and him were informed of the arrest warrant and agreed to a specified time when OJ would turn himself into authorities. Investigators are later admonished, by the defense, on how they handled the crime scene.
As far back as 1832, James Marsh was the first to use forensics at trial to give evidence as a chemist in 1832. Since that time forensic science and evidence has come a long way in various ways and technology to help in determine if the suspect is guilt or not, through such things as DNA testing, blood, and fingerprints. The first forensic police crime lab was created in 1910. The contributions of Dr. Edmond Locard, a French scientist and criminologist, proposed that “everything leaves a trace”. This principle is still valid today as it was so many years ago. No matter how small, the specialized trained technicians and investigators can take these methods and go to a crime scene to get evidence. “Forensic science is the application of sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, computer science and engineering to matters of law.” (Office of Justice, 2017) These different sciences can help achieve and assist in solving a case. Forensic science has also the ability to prove that a crime was committed, it can find the elements of the crime, it can help place the suspect at the scene and whether the suspect had any contact with the victim. However, in the last several years the techniques and with the use of technology the evidence that forensic science uncovers can also exonerate an innocent individual who has been falsely accused of the
“Witness for the Prosecution” superbly demonstrated a realist view of the operating procedures in a courtroom. The actors within the courtroom were easy to identify, and the steps transitioned smoothly from the arrest to the reading of the verdict. The murder trial of Leonard Vole provided realistic insight into how laws on the books are used in courtroom proceedings. With the inferior elements noted, the superior element of the court system in “Witness for the Prosecution” was the use of the adversary system. Both sides of the adversary system were flawlessly protrayed when the prosecution and defense squared off in the courtroom.
The prosecution's physical evidence includes a bloody glove, bloody socks, hair, and fibres and a trail of blood drops connecting the crime scene and O.J.'s estate. Defence lawyers say this physical evidence means nothing because it was either purposely tainted or contaminated. Kenneth Berris testified that two laundry bags are still missing from Simpson's Chicago hotel room. The bloody clothes and murder weapon have never been found.
Within the movie, it can be seen that persuasive argument is employed by one single juror to help sway the majority to believe his analysis of the evidence presented. He sets on a course to reach out to each juror and improve their thinking by reasonable and justified persuasion. There were three points raised in the tri...
These two jurors are almost the plain opposite of each other. Juror 3 appears to be a very intolerant man accustomed of forcing his wishes and views upon others. On the other hand, Juror 8 is an honest man who keeps an open mind for both evidence and reasonable doubt. Since these two people are indeed very different, they both have singular thoughts relating to the murder case. Juror 8 is a man who is loyal to justice. In the beginning of the play, he was the only one to vote ‘not guilty’ the first time the twelve men called a vote. Although his personality is reflected on being a quiet, thoughtful, gentle man, he is still a very persistent person who will fight for justice to be done. Juror 8 is a convincing man who presents his arguments well, but can also be seen as manipulative. An example would be when he kept provoking Juror 3 until he finally said “I’m going to kill you" to Juror 8. He did this because he wanted to prove that saying "I’ll kill you" doesn’t necessarily mean that Juror 3 was actually going to kill him. Juror 3 is a totally different character. He is a stubborn man who can be detected with a streak of sad...
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.
Unfortunately crime and murder is an issue in all areas of the country. Trials take place every day from a basic traffic offense to capital murder and the offender’s consequences depend on the jury. The jury consist of ordinary people that live an ordinary life. When faced with these trials, the decision making process is not easy. Some cases may hit home for many of the jurors so when deciding one’s fate does not make the process easy. The court case of Lizzie Borden is a story of a young girl who took an axe to her mother then to her father, the evidence led straight to her and she was later found not guilty by a stunned jury.
In the novel, he acted like an innocent person because he claims he doesn 't remember murdering the Archbishop. When he was questioned about the murder, he stated that he witnessed someone else murdering the bishop. What followed was truly shocking, he revealed having symptoms of multiple personality disorder. In a case with a mentally incompetent person would be proven innocent and set free. Aaron succeeded in proving that he was a schizophrenic person, however this was all a sham. The scheme was that Aaron was to make it believable that he was mentally incompetent. This showed Aaron’s true unethical character, he was dishonest, manipulative, and he lacked integrity. Aaron portrayed the illusion of a mentally ill person, a character Martin told him to play in order to win the case. Aaron got away with the satisfaction of murdering the Archbishop and fooling Martin into believing he was innocent. The outcome shows how being unethical can be falsely beneficial but will cause more damage than there was to begin