Runaway Jury was a motion picture that was released in 2003 and directed by Gary Felder. In this movie, a father and husband was shot in his workplace in New Orleans. His wife sued the gun manufacturer for allowing the murderer of her husband to obtain the gun. A jury was selected for this trial and one of the men selected was named Nicholas Easter. Nicholas and his girlfriend Marlee strategically manipulated the outcome of the trial using the jury members. This movie focused on jury tampering, voir dire, cooperate negligence, and jury summons which all pertain to trial law.
Jury tampering is the crime of attempting to influence a jury through other means than the evidence presented in curt. Jury tampering is committed in order to influence the vote, decision or opinion of a juror so that it can affect the outcome of the trial. Jury tampering was present in the film. The jury unexpectedly recited the pledge of allegiance at the beginning of the trial. Also, one of the male jurors who had HIV was given a letter regarding the status of his HIV. Another juror was confronted in his own grocery store and was informed about a “special opportunity” for him which was not true. One of the jurors was even pressured by
…show more content…
After this happens, both sides of the trial select which jurors they want to represent their side with the hopes that their picks will help win the case. Voir dire occurred towards the beginning of the movie. About fifty jurors were selected to appear at the questioning but only twelve were selected to participate in the trial. The prosecuting side wanted jurors who were against gun violence, had families, and had lost a family member. The defense wanted jurors who believed in the second amendment and were all for guns. Before the questioning of the potential jurors, both sides did research on them all in order to see if they fit the criteria of what they were looking
The American Jury system has been around for quite some time. It was the original idea that the framers of the constitution had wanted to have implemented as a means of trying people for their illegal acts, or for civil disputes. The jury system has stood the test of time as being very effective and useful for the justice system. Now it has come into question as to if the jury system is still the best method for trials. In the justice system there are two forms of trials, one being the standard jury trial, where 12 random members of society come together to decide the outcome of something. The other option would be to have a bench trial. In a bench trial, the judge is the only one deciding the fate of the accused. While both methods are viable
This chapter is mainly devoted to the jury selection process and how it is taken care
Despite the efforts of lawyers and judges to eliminate racial discrimination in the courts, does racial bias play a part in today’s jury selection? Positive steps have been taken in past court cases to ensure fair and unbiased juries. Unfortunately, a popular strategy among lawyers is to incorporate racial bias without directing attention to their actions. They are taught to look for the unseen and to notice the unnoticed. The Supreme Court in its precedent setting decision on the case of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), is the first step to limiting racial discrimination in the court room. The process of selecting jurors begins with prospective jurors being brought into the courtroom, then separating them into smaller groups to be seated in the jury box. The judge and or attorneys ask questions with intent to determine if any juror is biased or cannot deal with the issues fairly. The question process is referred to as voir dire, a French word meaning, “to see to speak”. During voir dire, attorneys have the right to excuse a juror in peremptory challenges. Peremptory challenges are based on the potential juror admitting bias, acquaintanceship with one of the parties, personal knowledge of the facts, or the attorney believing he/she might not be impartial. In the case of Batson v. Kentucky, James Batson, a black man, was indicted for second-degree burglary and receipt of stolen goods. During the selection of the jury the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to strike out all of the four black potential jurors, leaving an all white jury. Batson’s attorney moved to discharge the venire, the list from which jurors may be selected, on the grounds that the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges violated his client’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to have a jury derived from a “cross-section of the community”(People v. Wheeler, 583 P.3d 748 [Calif. 1978]). The circuit court ruled in favor of the prosecutor and convicted Batson on both counts. This case went through the courts and finalized in the U.S. Supreme Court.
As one of the seven jury deliberations documented and recorded in the ABC News television series In the Jury Room, the discussions of the jurors were able to be seen throughout the United States. A transcript was also created by ABC News for the public. The emotions and interactions of the jurors were now capable of being portrayed to anyone interested in the interworkings of jury deliberations. The first task, as instructed by the judge of the court, was for the jury to identify if the death penalty should be used.... ...
12 Angry Men is about 12 men who are the jury for an 18 year old accused of murder. The judge states in the opening scene that it is a premeditated murder in the 1st degree, if found guilty will automatically receive the death penalty. The 18 year old male is accused of killing his father with a “one of a kind” switch blade, in their home. The prosecutors have several eye witness testimonies, and all of the evidence that they could need to convict the 18 year old male. In the movie it takes place on the hottest day of the year in New York City. There are 12 jurors whom are to decide if the evidence is enough to convict the teen of murder in the first degree. In the first initial vote it is 11-1. The only way that the jurors could turn in their votes was if there was unanimous vote either guilty or not guilty among the 12 jurors. As the movie progressed the jurors ended up changing their minds as new evidence was brought to their attention by simple facts that were overlooked by the police and prosecutors in the initial investigation. Tempers were raised, and words flew, there was prejudice and laziness of a few of the jurors that affected the amount of time it took to go over all of the eye witness testimonies and evidence. The eye witness testimonies ended up being proven wrong and some of the evidence was thrown out because it was put there under false pretense.
This movie goes to show how such crucial facts and minuet evidence if not processed fully and clearly can change the outcome in such a big way. In this jury you have 12 men from all different walks of life, 12 different times, and 12 different personalities. Who have an obligation to come to one conclusion and that's whether or not the young man on trial is guilty of murdering his father or is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Under much frustration and lack of patience these 12 men began to get unruly and unfocused. Throughout this distraction key terms get misused, facts get turned around and more importantly emotions start to cross making it hard for these men to produce a verdict.
In the United States, jury trials are an important part of our court system. We rely heavily on the jury to decide the fate of the accused. We don’t give a second thought to having a jury trial now, but they were not always the ‘norm’.
As time goes on he becomes more and more passionate and seems to be somehow personally involved with the case. At one point, he tells the other jurors about an argument between him and his son. Juror 3 and his son had an argument which made his son run away. When his son returned to apologize, Juror 3 hit him for leaving the first time thus leading him to run away once more. He has not seen his son in two years and this has left him somewhat bitter inside. His anger toward his supposed ungrateful son is projected toward the young man on trial. Juror 3 has no concern for the life of the defendant. He makes it clear that he would have been an executioner and would have pulled the switch on the boy himself. His personal troubles have imposed on his ability to come to a verdict.
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.
...a unanimous vote of not guilty. The final scene takes place signifying the "adjourning stage". Two of the jurors, eight and three exchange the only character names mentioned during the film. The entire process of groupthink occurs in multiple ways that display its symptoms on individual behavior, emotions, and personal filters. These symptoms adversity affected the productivity throughout the juror's debate. In all, all twelve men came to an agreement but displayed group social psychological aspects.
Now that we have discussed the pretrial occurrences, we get into the trial portion of the court process. This is the portion of the process in which both the defense and the prosecution present their cases to the jury, the judge, and the rest of the courtroom. To select a jury, the bring in potential jurors and ask them questions,
This stage is an examination of potential jurors to ensure a fair trial for the defendant. Ideally, voir dire will result in an impartial jury for the trial of the accused. On March 4, 2004 jury selection began for the trial of Scott Peterson. Nearly 100 potential jurors began answering questionnaires about their views on the death penalty and their opinions on extramarital affairs. The nearly 30-page questionnaire given to prospective jurors also included questions as whether they read Field and Stream, what stickers grace their car bumpers and whether they have lost a child. On April 14, 2004 Judge Alfred A. Delucchi dismissed an unidentified Redwood City woman after a brief meeting in his chambers. Defense attorney Mark Geragos two weeks early had accused the retired secretary of bragging to her friends on a bus trip to Reno, Nevada, that she has "passed the test" to get on Peterson's jury and that Peterson was "guilty as hell" and would "get what's due him." May 28, 2004 six men and six women were selected for Scott Peterson's murder trial all said they would be willing to sentence him to death if they convict him of killing his wife and the couple's fetus.
Jury nullification means that a jury finds a defendant innocent because the law itself is unjust, or is unjust in a particular application, and so should not be applied. So really what this means is that no mater what the law says the jury will pretty much have the right to choose weather the person is going to be guilty or innocent and that is kind of ok in some cases but then again its not in others so we should not expect our juries to judge our laws only the case that person is being tried in and they should only judge that person on all of the facts given.
Is the jury system a good idea? Many will say yes, and a few like myself will say no. At first I believed, yes a jury system is a good idea, it’s lasted us this long so why should there be any changes to it. Then I read this DBQ and it changed my mind. So first of all, most jurors are non-reliable, a lot of them can be biased and not even care or pay attention to the case they are assigned to, and lastly we have living proof on why we should get rid of a jury, and that is the Casey Anthony case.
The film 12 Angry Men depicts the challenge faced by a jury as they deliberate the charges brought against an 18-year-old boy for the first-degree murder of his father. Their task is to come to an impartial verdict, based on the testimony that was heard in court. The group went through the case over and over while personal prejudices, personality differences, and tension mounted as the process evolved. While the scorching hot weather conditions and personal affairs to tend to led the juror to make quick and rash decisions, one juror convinced them the fate of the 18 year old was more important than everyone’s problems an convinced them that they could not be sure he was guilty. Juror three took the most convincing. After fighting till he