Emma's POV:
As they always said, 'Crime doesn't pay'.
Today was the day of my trial, I was in the court's lockup room waiting anxiously for the time of my case's hearing. They let me wear formal today instead of my lovely bright orange jumpsuit I used to wear for the past two weeks, I was wearing a black blazer, a white shirt, and a black pantsuit. I was handcuffed and sitting alone, and that made my mind wander in every direction about what was going to happen today, I was sure it was going to be bad, but I was still hoping for the least damage.
I also recalled everything that happened in my life and every wrong choice I have made that was a reason for this situation. In the end, we always regretted the chances we didn't take, and I let
…show more content…
Eric sat with the audience in the first line. After that, I noticed Jake and Luke walking together until they sat a few chairs away from Eric. I was trying to stay strong as much as I could, but seeing Jake made my heart jump in my chest, he made me really nervous, I tried not to look at his direction and focus my gaze in front of me.
After a while, the judge walked in and walked straight to the platform, he was an old man with white hair and a lot of wisdom in his eyes. We all stood up in respect for him then he sat and pounded his gavel twice indicating to the start of the trial.
"Calling the case of the heist of the Metropolitan museum of art," The judge said, calmly.
My attorney rose up from his position and started making his opening statement. Then all of the evidence they had on me got presented. After that, it was the time to call the witnesses to give their testimony.
The museum's manager was called first to give his testimony about the painting and how I stole his key card to get in. Then Declan came in handcuffed and started to narrate how he gave the alleged homeless man aka Eric the painting and then he said that he didn't know where Hunter was, right now. After that, the last witness was called to give his testimony, Jake.
He didn't even give me a gander as he passed by me and walked to the
…show more content…
"Yes, it's true." He said, not looking at me, and focusing his gaze on the attorney.
"Have you seen her face that day?" The attorney asked again.
"No," Jake answered, maintaining a poker face.
The attorney looked at me with a cocky smile before returning her gaze towards Jake. I took a long deep breath trying to make myself ready for her next question that I was certain she was going to ask.
"Agent Parker, is it true that you had a further relationship with Miss Lawrence, a love affair, maybe?" The attorney asked with a smile playing on her lips.
"I-it's true," Jake answered, uneasily.
The room started to buzz with whispers, and that made the judge pound with his gravel "Order in my court." He demanded.
I closed my eyes and looked at the ground, tightening my grip of my hands out of stress. This was so far from my tolerance point.
"Objection," My attorney proclaimed, "What relevance does this really have to the case?"
"Agreed, but I want to ask agent Parker a question," The judge said calmly, then he looked at Jake, "Agent Parker, did you know who Miss Lawrence really was? And did that influence your
"I am a criminal. My 25-year-old daughter, Jody, was dying of bone cancer. The pain was so great that she couldn't bear to be touched, and drugs didn't help. Jody had a few weeks to live when she decided she wanted to end her life. But it wasn't legally possible. So I broke the law and got her the pills necessary. And as she slipped peacefully away, I climbed into her bed and I took her in my arms [Rosen's voice cracks with emotion] for the first time in months...." (1)
The Judge had a second chance of making the defendants aware that Vinny may not be the best qualified at preliminary hearing. When once again Vinny was not ready to go through the process of trial. There is an unwritten requirement of a certain dress code as well as behavior in a court room. Which, Vinny is unprepared to deal with at this point of the movie. Vinny did not take the time to cross examine any of the witnesses or question any of the perceived facts
judges are sitting in front of the podium. They seat the accused in between the two front
Yet with the help of one aged yet wise and optimistic man he speaks his opinion, one that starts to not change however open the minds of the other eleven men on the jury. By doing this the man puts out a visual picture by verbally expressing the facts discussed during the trial, he uses props from the room and other items the he himself brought with him during the course of the trial. Once expressed the gentleman essentially demonstrate that perhaps this young man on trial May or may not be guilty. Which goes to show the lack of research, and misused information that was used in the benefit of the prosecution. For example when a certain factor was brought upon the trail; that being timing, whether or not it took the neighbor 15 seconds to run from his chair all the way to the door. By proving this right or wrong this man Juror #4 put on a demonstration, but first he made sure his notes were correct with the other 11 jurors. After it was
Not able to remember much about this particular part of the movie, I believe this introductory scene's purpose was to either enhance the realism of the setting by emphasizing the court building's efficient, business like manner or to provide a timeslot in which to roll the credits for producer, director, stars, etc. The settings aren't only built upon through the use of scenery and extras in the movie. Invisible and distant in the play, we see in the movie the judge, bailiff, those witnessing the trial and most importantly of all- the defendant. This is an important change because in the case, we are free to come up with our own unbiased conclusions as to the nature and identity of the defendant, whom we only know to be a 19 year boy from the slums. Seeing his haggard and worn face in the movie changes all of that, yet for better or worse, it engages the audience deeper into the trial as they surely will sympathize with him and can gain some insight into why, later, Juror 8 does so as well.
The conditions of an interrogation room, small and dark, make it easy for the interrogators to get in one’s head. The hostile conditions create a divide and discomfort between the suspect and the interrogator, already losing trust on both parties. “He eventually confessed, but investigators had to ‘spoonfeed’ him the details”(Patrick). The suspects feel uncomfortable and scared of the interrogators therefore, they feel the need to please the police, even if the idea did not come from them. In this case, the suspect Michael Crowe was under an immense amount of trauma, getting rushed in a cop car from the crime scene straight to the police station. After being interrogated for three and a half hours he was taken to a different location to get interviewed, “he was emotionally drained and so tired he could barely walk”(Warden 13). In the second interview one interrogator asked Crowe to write a letter to his dead sister he was accused of killing, “it is almost like I am being convinced of this[more] than really knowing it...I pray to God that you forgive me for what they say I did”(Warden 13). Crowe uses the phrase “what they say I did” proving that the confession was not his idea, but the police’s instead. He was innocent and the police forced him to make up a story and confess to a crime he did not commit, utilizing the mental strain of interrogation against
Its funny but when am sitting in the courtroom i don't feel like i'm involved in the case. It's like the lawyers and the judge and everybody doing their job that involves me. Both mary and steve went to prison and only one of them was caught. In the stories Monster and Lamb to the slaughter the characters steve and mary are dangerous because considering munder as a oppiction. Steve is a 16 year old boy and he was arrested for a look out in the robbery. Steve ends up in a bad place and the store owner ends up dead. Even no Steve didnt touch the gun he could still possibly face time in jail. Because Steve was still part of the robbery he is facing jail time at the age of 16 and possibly going to get charged with murder. Steve had made some bad
In the opening statements both side of the case make opening statements to lay the foundation of their cases. Opening statements are not allowed to be argumentative and cannot be considered evidence by the jury; they are the road maps laying out where each side intends to take its case. First the prosecution presented its case. They alleged Peterson killed his wife in their Modesto home because he was having an affair, then drove her body nearly 100 miles to San Francisco Bay and heaved it overboard from his small boat. Prosecution offered a steady drum beat of small bits of circumstantial evidence. From the Russian poetry Peterson read his mistress to the fishing gear in his alibi to the dessert featured on a particular episode of Martha Stewart Living, it added up to Peterson's guilt, they suggested. The defense countered that Modesto authorities unfairly targeted Peterson, ignoring important leads that didn't fit their theory. Defense said that, while prosecutors had only assembled a circumstantial case, they had five witnesses that were direct evidence of Peterson's innocence.
“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).
Before the day of Peter Houghton’s school shooting, Alex Cormier worked as a high-ranking judge at the local court. As a former public defender, Alex worked hard to earn this new position. Alex, a single working mother, told a coworker “but I’m good at being a judge. And lousy at being a mother” (Picoult 297). She felt more comfortable from a judicial standpoint than a parental standpoint, which affected her daughter negatively because Josie needed her mother’s true physical presence and emotional support. Josie did not need the stress of her mother trying the case, but instead needed the tender love that Alex does not feel she can give. Alex excelled at “transforming herself into the person she needed to be before she left the house,” (Picoult 5) incidentally pushing her daughter out of her tight circle of importance. Alex then becomes stuck in the mi...
The plot of “Witness for the Prosecution” takes the viewer on a rollercoaster ride as the mystery of Emily French’s, a wealthy widow, murder unfolds in the courtroom. Leonard Vole visits the office of Sir Wilfrid for legal advice because he suspects that he will be arrested and charged with Mrs. French’s murder. Consequently, Vole’s suspicion came to fruition when he was arrested minutes are voicing his concerns. Sir Wilfrid accepted Vole’s case after he consults with a fellow barrister (attorney). Christine Helm, Vole’s wife and a former actress, graces Sir Wilfrid’s office with her presence to corroborate Vole’s story confirming his alibi. During the trial, Christine is not called as a witness for the defense; however, she is called as a witness for the prosecution. The mysterious death of Emily French resulted ...
Juror #2 was a grandpa, and was new the whole jury idea. He never said much, but when he did he was always very insightful. Though he starts with the boys guilty, throughout the hour he was willing to listen to what others had to say, particularly guy # 8. He was the one who asked the other men, to think more about the crime scene. When Guy#8 reenacted the scene he was the one who took the time to see how long it took for the witness to get to the door and see the boy running. Also he studied on how the boy used the knife, and where he got such a knife. Has a grandson who looks like fat Albert. Had a small Argument with guy #10, but never really had much conflict with others. As they come to closing with the votes, he ended up changing his vote to not guilty.
By the end of Dostoyesky’s Crime and Punishment, the reader is no longer under the illusion of the possible existence of “extraordinary” men. For an open-minded reader, and even perhaps the closed-minded ones too, the book is a journey through Raskolnikov’s proposed theory on crime. It is a theory based on the ideas that had “been printed and read a thousand times”(313) by both Hegel and Nietzsche. Hegel, a German philosopher, influenced Dostoyesky with his utilitarian emphasis on the ends rather than the means whereby a superman existed as one that stood above the ordinary man, but worked for the benefit of all mankind. Nietsche’s more selfish philosophy focused on the rights to power which allowed one to act in a Hegelian manner. In committing his crime, Raskolnikov experienced the ultimate punishment as he realized that his existence was not that of the “extraordinary” man presented in his theory. In chapter five of part three in Crime and Punishment, this theory is outlined by its creator, Raskolnikov. Such an innovative theory would clearly have placed him in the “extraordinary” category, but when he fails to meet its standards, by submitting to the common law through his confession, the theory crumbles right before the reader’s eyes.
The old man that had testified explained that he heard the young boy say, “I’m going to kill you” and then heard the body hit the floor. They also explained that the L train was passing by at this exact time. Juror 9 then related to the old man by saying that this old man wanted attention and recognition. The old man wanted someone to listen to him and he made himself believe that he heard those things. They then started arguing on the fact that the old man said that this young boy yelled that he was going to kill his father out to the whole neighborhood and how that was highly unlikely. Juror 5 then changes his vote to not guilty. Juror 11 then questions why the boy would come back to the scene after he killed his father. Juror 11 felt like it wouldn’t have been possible that he would go back to the scene because he heard somebody scream and he was calm enough to not leave fingerprints and clean up evidence. Juror 11 then changes his vote to not
Sociologists have been examining crime and its causes for over 150 years, and through several researches, various explanations have been used to describe crime and deviance. Crime is a behaviour that goes against all formal written laws of a given society (Haralambos, Smith, O 'Gorman, & Heald, 1996). Laws in different societies differ, so do crimes i.e. what may be considered as a crime in one society may not be in another different society. For instance, while same-sex relationship is accepted in some countries like the United States, United Kingdom etc. it is illegal in countries like Nigeria, and most Arabic countries. Other examples of general crimes are theft/robbery, murder, kidnapping and others. Once a crime is committed, sanctions