Leroy Reed Verdict

explanatory Essay
535 words
535 words

I personally favor the verdict to acquit Leroy Reed because I believe that even though he broke the law, he should not be charged with the crime of possessing a gun. The most convincing evidence was the expert witness who stated that Reed had a 2nd grade level of intelligence. When Leroy Reed was testifying, he was asked if he was a convicted, and he answered no. He was then prompted to answer yes to seeing a parole officer. Reed was then asked again if he was a convicted felon and he said yes. Reed gave conflicting answers on being a convicted felon during his testimony, which shows his mental capabilities. EXPAND. Another piece of convincing evidence was after Reed showed the sheriff the sales receipt of the gun as a form of identification, Reed voluntarily turned the gun in. Reed knew he had the gun, but he willing turned it in. I believe Reed should not be convicted for willing turning in his gun when requested by the sheriff. The last piece of convincing evidence was that Reed was not carrying the gun on him. Reed was looking to become a private investigator, which led him to p...

In this essay, the author

  • Opines that even though leroy reed broke the law, he should not be charged with the crime of possessing a gun.
  • Explains that they are ignoring the law because they believe it should not be applied to the case of leroy reed. the other position would state reed is guilty because he broke the laws of being a convicted felon and owning
  • Explains the proper roles of the jury are to gather all the facts and evidence, apply the law to facts, and serve as a buffer between the defendant and state by reflecting the community's values of justice.
  • Explains the pros and cons of the jury nullifying a case. the jury can reflect the community's values and beliefs of what is justice.
  • Explains the pros of jury nullifying: verdicts vary by case, bias from sympathy is likely to occur, others in the community may not agree with jury’s view of justice, and the jury speculates about the law or defendant, which could be wrong.
  • Explains that the pros of the jury never nullifying are consistent rulings in cases because they only use the facts, and it is less likely to be biased and make speculation about the case.
  • Explains the pros of the jury never nullifying, stating that juries would become useless because they would no longer be a buffer between the defendant and state, laws would be harder to overturn and the community beliefs of justice were ignored.
Get Access