‘Snow Falling on Cedars” by David Guterson is based on court case dealing with a Japanese- American man on trial for being accused of killing a white man. The story takes place back around the 1940s when World War II was happening and America started being hostile to Japanese-Americans. Throughout the story there is a minor character named Alvin hooks who was the prosecutor which played a huge part in the trail demonstrating the acts of being prejudice against the Japanese. I will be talking about how Alvin hooks displayed his acts of being prejudice towards the Japanese in order to win his case and get Mr. Miyamoto prosecuted.
In the beginning Alvin Hooks brings his very first witness to the stand sheriff Art Moran which was a minor character throughout the story but had to still testify. The sheriff explained that last night it was foggy on the lake and the boat lights where still on. Therefore he and his deputy came out to Carl’s boat later on the next day to see if everything was alright. Once they made their way to the boat they found that everything was clean except for a coffee cup on the floor. Later on, the sheriff found Carl’s net which contained him. They brought up the net from the water which had his dead body in it. They witness that they have seen a wound on the side of Carl’s head. Alvin hooks replies with disgust knowingly convincing the jurors already that Mr. Miyamoto is the one that killed Carl.
In the court room Mr. Hooks makes a point with the evidence he is given and testimonies by witnesses to prosecute Mr. Miyamoto. Mr. Hooks takes some drastic measures by using personal attacks and being prejudice towards the defendant to convince the jurors that Mr. Miyamoto is a killer. During the trail Alvin hooks b...
... middle of paper ...
...stions to the man, but Kubuo keeps changing his story. Alvin hooks starts to make remarks about Mr. Miyamoto saying “You’re a hard man to trust, Mr. Miyamoto. You sit before us with no expression, keeping a poker face through.” After that remark Mr. Miyamoto stepped down from the stand and the whole juror got a good look at him. Therefore Alvin hooks felt that he was back on track to having the juror side with him then the defendant.
At the end of the court session Alvin hooks does not stop with being prejudice against the Japanese. Making them feel like they are not human and they do not belong here. Alvin hooks is one prosecutor that does not give up on his cases and will use any form of evidence against you. In the end the jurors do not side with him because it was a misunderstanding in how Carl died. Carl died by a mishap of events that caused him to pass away.
He stereotypes the boy: “That goddamn rotten kid. I know him. What they’re like” (page 71). He already convicts the defendant in the very early until end and his prejudice attitude makes him a hyperbolic stubborn man. He wishes to punish that defendant for the depression his own son inflected on him. He personally longs for that punishment, not because of fact. Another point that should be noticed is that 3rd juror’s bias on children makes him fail in analyzing every piece of evidence and view them from only negative side, which leads to his failure of deliberating
Gaines’ novel is centered on a massive injustice, which is a young man who is falsely convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death by electrocution. When Jefferson was brought into a trial for the murders of the three white men in the bar, most of the jury quickly assumed that he was guilty due to his skin color, because, at that time, the assumption of innocence does not
“He was active in local affairs, a devoted Christian and solid citizen who believed in public service and always ready to volunteer”(1) .Ben had no rhyme or reason to murder Bill because Grisham demonstrates how bill has no character traits to have any enemies therefore the murder was done in cold blood. All these quotes which are background information and personal experience strategy are given so the reader has a sense of who Bill was and a sense of who Ben was a way of showing how effective background information is to a reader.
The years 1940 through 1955 portray a time in America’s history when many Americans harbored a strong fear and distrust for Americans of Japanese descent. A closer look at this dark period for America reveals how the fictional character Kabou Miyamoto, in David Guterson’s Snow Falling on Cedars could easily have been presumed guilty of murder simply because of his Japanese ancestry. Historical documentation can be related to the events in the novel to help explain the mindsets of the characters and to understand why the town suspects Kabou of this crime and then precedes to issue a charge of guilty. The prejudice that Kabou experienced in the book was typical of experiences that many Japanese-Americans went through from the time period 1940 through 1955. Discriminatory laws of the time period, such as the Alien Land Bill and Executive Order 9066, coupled with a growing distrust and hatred for Japanese people make life a hardship for Japanese-Americans and make it easy for the jury to convict Kabou of murder solely because of his Japanese descent.
To begin, parallel and conflicting characteristics can be realized by exploring the judges of the two cases. Judge Horton and Judge Taylor both presided over the cases. Judge Horton was the second of three judges in the Scottsboro cases, and Judge Taylor was the fictional judge in To Kill a Mockingbird. The two both exhibited undeniable sympathy to the defendants in the cases. Judge Horton sympathizes with the nine Scottsboro boys by declaring, “You are not trying whether or not the defendant is white or black … you are trying whether or not this defendant forcibly ravished a woman” (People and Events). It is obvious that Judge Horton was unprejudiced and believed the boys should be treated with equality. This attitude is akin to the one of Judge Taylor; Taylor assigned Atticus Finch, a notable lawyer, to the case of the fictional black character Tom Robinson. Maxwell Green, an inexperience rookie, should have been assigned the case; however due to Taylor’s empathy, Tom obtained a decent lawyer who would do h...
The truth can sometimes depend on the circumstance and the person who states it. When confronted with conflicting accounts or questionable details, a judge within the court of law must decide the sentence of an individual with these obstacles in place. In this case, the defendant Dannie McGrew has been charged with the murder of Barney Quill, but claims that it was self-defense. The following contains a thorough explanation as to how the judge decided upon the verdict of acquittal.
The court system includes the judges, jury, prosecutors and defense attorneys. The Attorneys convince the suspects to take plea bargains, the judges are sometimes unfair in the decisions they make, and the prosecutors overlook exculpatory evidence. Picking cotton shows in detail some common errors of the court system. During Ronald Cotton 's first trial, His Attorney, Phil Moseley, tried to bring a memory expert to testify on the unreliability of memory but the judge denied his request. After Ronald 's case was overturned by the supreme court, he got a new trial in another court which had even more problems and bias. First, there was racial prejudice during the jury selection. “Four black people from the community got called in for jury duty. The judge himself dismissed one of them and then Mr turner made sure none of the rest sat on my jury” Ronald cotton stated. Because he was black, the four jurors were dismissed and he was left with an all white jury and two white Alternates. Second, the judge “Held something called a “voir dire” hearing, which Phil explained meant he would have to put up all the evidence about Poole in front of the Judge, but not the Jury”(129). Also, Ronald Cotton 's defense attorney explained to the judge the parallelism between Bobby Poole 's case and the rape Ronald Cotton was charged with. Despite the weak physical evidence against Ronald Cotton, 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.
It was a hot and dusty day when Bass Reeves, the biggest most powerful man in the West was awoken. Feared by many and respected by all Bass was no joke. Word of a murder spread around the small town like a wild fire and work for Bass soon began. Upon arrival at the scene it became all to evident who committed the crime. A friend turned enemy, family turned foe.. his own blood. After a few minutes of intensive questioning and intimidation's, Bass finally came face to face with him, Bennie. As they stood in front of each other, Reeves towering over Beenie with rage filled eyes. The showdown was about to commence. Beenie came full charge at Reeves with everything he had in him. As Beenie neared the skilled Bass simple sent a gust of wind his
As juror number one, I had to research why Johnny should, or should not be tried for the murder of Bob Sheldon, the Soc. I also had to research murder among teens and what happened during the killing of Bob Sheldon. During my research, I found that murder was considered a premeditated killing, and I also found that Johnny can only be tried for murder in Connecticut, New York, and North Carolina because of his age. Johnny was planning on saving, Ponyboy Curtis, who at the time was being drowned by David, the Soc Bob had told him to “give Ponyboy a bath.” In trying to save Ponyboy he pulled out his pocket knife and stabbed Bob Sheldon in the back therefore causing David to release Ponyboy and flee the scene. After finding that information I also found that Bob Sheldon and his group of friends had stopped their car on The Greasers side of town and got out to show them a lesson for taking out their girls. ...
The movie “12 Angry Men” examines the dynamics at play in a United States jury room in the 1950’s. It revolves around the opinions and mindsets of twelve diverse characters that are tasked with pronouncing the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of patricide. The extraordinary element is that their finding will determine his life or death. This play was made into a movie in 1957, produced by Henry Fonda who played the lead role, Juror #8, and Reginald Rose who wrote the original screenplay. This essay will explore some of the critical thinking elements found within the context of this movie, and will show that rational reason and logic when used effectively can overcome the mostly ineffective rush to judgment that can be prevalent in a population. The juror that seemed interesting is Juror #8, who was played by Henry Fonda. Juror #8, or Davis, is an architect, the first dissenter and protagonist in the film. He was the first one to declare that the young man was innocent and he managed to convince the other jurors to see his point of view. Durkheim states that when we respond to deviance, it brings people together (Macionis, 2013, p. 159). We affirm the moral ties that bind us together, which was seen in the movie. At first, almost all of the jurors were so bent on convicting the young man based on their feelings, but they then started to analyze the facts and they came together to make their final decision.
Juror #10, a garage owner, segregates and divides the world stereotypically into ‘us’ and ‘them.’ ‘Us’ being people living around the rich or middle-class areas, and ‘them’ being people of a different race, or possessing a contrasting skin color, born and raised in the slums (poorer parts of town). It is because of this that he has a bias against the young man on trial, for the young man was born in the slums and was victim to domestic violence since the age of 5. Also, the boy is of a Hispanic descent and is of a different race than this juror, making him fall under the juror’s discriminatory description of a criminal. This is proven on when juror #10 rants: “They don’t need any real big reason to kill someone, either. You know, they get drunk, and bang, someone’s lying in the gutter… most of them, it’s like they have no feelings (59).
... the Criminal Justice system. The author offers the reader a front row seat to the unfairness and unreliability of the CJ system. Grisham is not a fair writer himself and is biased in his writing throughout the entire novel. It is evident to the reader by the end of the novel that the prosecution in the case went to every extreme possible to put Fritz and Williamson in prison for a crime they did not commit. From the reader’s perspective, we knew from the beginning that Fritz and Williamson, no matter how much negative behavior they engaged in, were not the criminals and that there was a high likelihood of Gore being the offender. Nevertheless, Grisham takes us on a wild, nail-biting edge-of-your-seat ride through the Criminal Justice system in this book that leads us through an unfair trial and a slew of biased opinions, lies and deceptions and unjust procedures.
Kabuo Assumed Guilty Because of Japanese Heritage in Snow Falling on Cedars by David Guterson
Analysis of The Hanged Man's Bride, The Trial for Murder and Confession Found in a Prison