innocent people. Eyewitness had told them that Montgomery had jumped and fired directly at Attacks killing him. Was there something they had missed that would make them consider as Chief Hale had stated “err on the side of mercy”? However, John Adams knew that using just one brilliant English lawyer was not enough, so he again cited another admired judge and lawyer, Chancellor John Fortescue. Fortescue was born in 1394 and served as a judge during the time of King Henry VI’s rule in England. Here again, Adams used the influence of another Englishman to help persuade the jurors. From the words of Fortescue, Adams said to the court, “ it is better that the guilty escape punishment than the innocent suffer”. The fate of these men lay in the hands of John Adams and he knew he had to impress abound the judge and jury the fact that they were firing in self-defense and not in malice or hatred. As these men set listing to Adams speak to the crowd, they must have pondered the events of that night in their minds. As the trial continued, Adams began to educate the jury not on the events that had taken place, but the laws as written within English law. He first stated that the incident, which had occurred, was not murder, but homicide. According to Adams just because a man had killed another man, it is not considered a crime. Here the doubt of whether murder has occurred in this particular case was placed in the minds of the jury. Adams was clever and knew the law as he explained in great detail the breakdown of homicide to the court. The breakdown was simple there were three distinct types of homicide that Adams made clear to the jury. 1) justifiable, 2) excusable and 3) felonious which was subdivided into two parts a) m...
... middle of paper ...
... as it unfolded in attempt to help the jury and judge understand the timeline as it happened. He asked the jury if they believed the witness that had sworn to be truthful that the soldiers were under duress from the start. From the start of the incident from eye-witness testimony 12 men in what appeared to many was sailor outfits showed up with clubs in their hands. They approached the soldiers in a uproar over what had happened. As the bells rang the people assembled and another fifty or so gathered according to testimony given the day prior. Adams stated to the jury, what was to be expected with a crowd of this size against a group of eight soldiers. They were yelling and screaming, throwing objects and the soldiers and daring them to fire at them as well as screaming for those in the crowd to kill the soldiers. Adams, however did call into testimony the
The Boston Massacre was an event that could have never happened. The innocent lives could have been saved and the British troopers would have never been put on Trial. The aftermath of the lives been loss in Boston Massacre was a trial to punish the British Troopers and finally get them out America. The lawyer of the British troops was a man named John Adams, who was the cousin of Sam Adams. John’s role in the Boston Massacre trial was to represent his clients without negotiate his role as an American. Since John had to stand behind the British troops, he had to team up with different other lawyers to make sure the British troops be treated fair. John’s ethic perspective was deontological ethics because he may not believe the British troops
``In criminal law, confession evidence is a prosecutor’s most potent weapon’’ (Kassin, 1997)—“the ‘queen of proofs’ in the law” (Brooks, 2000). Regardless of when in the legal process they occur, statements of confession often provide the most incriminating form of evidence and have been shown to significantly increase the rate of conviction. Legal scholars even argue that a defendant’s confession may be the sole piece of evidence considered during a trial and often guides jurors’ perception of the case (McCormick, 1972). The admission of a false confession can be the deciding point between a suspect’s freedom and their death sentence. To this end, research and analysis of the false confessions-filled Norfolk Four case reveals the drastic and controversial measures that the prosecuting team will take to provoke a confession, be it true or false.
John smith, the accused, stood up in the courtroom and started yelling at the judge about what he thought of his innocence irrespective of the decision that the judge would make. He also cursed the prosecutor and kept quiet when his lawyer warned him of the negative consequences that would follow if he continued with the same behavior. Smith
It is the 1940's, in a small Cajun community, there is a trial for the murder of a white liquor store attendant. The defense is Jefferson, a poorly educated black man. His appointed attorney is closing his argument in an attempt to spare his client the death penalty. His attorney states, "Gentlemen of the jury, be merciful. For God's sake, be merciful. He is innocent of all charges brought against him. But let us say he was not. Let us for a moment say he was not. What justice would there be to take this life? Justice, gentlemen? Why, I would just as soon put a hog in the electric chair as this." (p. 8)
Syme, D. (1997). Martin Bryant's Sentence- What the judge said, Retrieved 5 July, 2003, from http://www.geniac.net/portarthur/sentence.htm. 7. The Australian Encyclopaedia.
“Danforth was a big part of the actual trials and his court system was very brutal and uncivilized, in fact he said, "If you are not with the court, you are against it" which essentially can be inferred as, if a defendant is on trial and they don't believe what the court believes then they are guilty.” (Witchcru).
By ruling the death of the attacker an accident, the murderer did not suffer consequences for his actions. Although Mr. Radley was defendi...
Chapter Six. God and Judge Jones. Charles Pierce talks to Judge Jones about how he was promoted to his Judge position and how Judge Jones became a Judge. In the words of Judge Jones, “In the first six months,” he recalls, “I had this germ of an idea. I thought, ‘Gee, I’d like to do this.’ That’s not unusual. A lot of lawyers want to become judges. So, I held that thought.” (Page 136) Judge Jones also made a ruling that the public did not agree with and he was put on a protection plan along with his life. He was being judged by public opinion. Judge Jones certainly isn’t the idiot in this situation. Those who tried to kill him deserve to be.
Imagine an elderly man inviting someone into his home to take care of him, but then his caretaker surprisingly creates a scheme that will get rid of him because of his eye. The old man trusted him with his life, and suddenly he takes it from him. The man I am describing is Mr. Heart, who is guilty of committing first degree murder. He was the victim’s caretaker for a long enough duration of time for them to develop a father-son relationship with one another, yet he killed him in the end. Members of the jury, after going over the evidence against Mr. Heart in the State of New Jersey vs. Mr. Heart case, it is as clear as day that he should be convicted of first degree murder, because the facts show proof of premeditation, deliberation, and malice.
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.
Captain Thomas Preston’s vision of the Boston massacre was an incident were a British soldier accidently fired his weapon and his men then followed after resulting in the death of five Bostonians including free black sailor Cripus Attucks. Starting the story Captain Thomas Preston admits that the arrival of the Majesty’s Troops were obnoxious to the inhabitants. Troops have done everything in their power to weaken the regiments by falsely propagating untruths about them. On Monday at 8 o’ clock two soldiers were beaten and townspeople then broke into two meetinghouses and rang the bells. But at 9 o’ clock some troops have informed Captain Thomas Preston that the bell was not ringing to give notice for a fire but to make the troops aware of the attack the towns people were going to bring upon them.
... to a miscommunication between the Captain and his soldiers. If the crowd had not been in such an uproar the Boston Massacre never would have happened. With all the testimony and the deposition from the Captain, the jury made the correct decision by determining Preston innocent.
Whitehouse goes on to saying that a soldier got knocked down by a chunk of wood that a man got it from under his coat. Based on most against Preston and some for Preston testimonies like the Benjamin Burdick against testimony, he said that he saw” stick thrown at the Soldiers” not a big chunk of wood that would knock a soldier out. Whitehouse testimony was most likely to distract the jury from the other strong testimonies that were made against Preston, so they might think that there is something that they are misinterpreted from the other testimonies. These testimonies show evidence that Preston ordered his soldiers to fire at people who some of them were innocents who were just there to fulfill their curiosity of the situation to murder them. The Boston Massacre created a new attitude in people that was not there before. It created more hatred toward the British forces living with them and taking their money from them. It also made us understand that the American Revolution is coming because the people will not wait until another massacre to happen to kill more people of their own, they want the British to
Green, T. A. "The jury and the English law of homicide, 1200-1600.". Ann Arbor, MI: Mich. L. Rev. 74 (1976): 413-499.
On Bloodsworth’s appeal he argued several points. First he argued that there was not sufficient evidence to tie Bloodsworth to the crime. The courts ruled that the ruling stand on the grounds that the witness evidence was enough for reasonable doubt that the c...