In the beginning of the semester when we were handed this trial without knowing this was the one we would be viewing in class, I noticed that my initial verdict from then was drastically different than my final verdict after watching the trial. After viewing the trial I realized that the details and evidence that was presented in the article we were given was one sided to favor the prosecutors. I believe that it is important for me to discuss my view of this trial, my verdict and my reasoning for why I believe in my decision. During this trial I found myself going back and forth between whose side I was on due to the fact that both sides had valid points. When it came to the jury deliberation, I was originally the only one whose verdict was voluntary manslaughter. The rest of my jurors all had the verdict of …show more content…
I believe that the alcohol was a major factor in the case along with Sandoval being emotionally upset. Sandoval had a right to be upset with the events that led up to the stabbing, but when it came to my decision I needed to wrap my mind around why Sandoval would stab Botello who had no prior altercation with Sandoval. When reading up on the definition of voluntary manslaughter, I noticed three words that stood out to me “heat of passion”. Although Sandoval initially walked up to the house with a chainsaw, I myself, do not believe he was going into “cut them up” as the police officer testified but left out of his police report. The Officers testimony had way too many questionable statements in it for myself to truly believe him. This is where “heat of passion” comes into play because of the fact that I do not believe the “cut them up” statement the police officer made. My thoughts about the matter is that as Sandoval who was already on edge due to the alcohol and anger entered the house, he felt threatened because of a statement that Hutchinson made. It looks to me that
In 2 years the trial ended with the verdict of guilty on the account of
Thesis Statement: The Sacco and Vanzetti case was an unfair trial leading to the two men to be executed.
R. v. Lavallee was a case held in 1990 that sent waves through the legal community. The defendant, Lyn Lavallee was in a relationship with her partner, Kevin Rust, in which he would abuse her both mentally and physically. On the night of the incident, Lyn and her husband got into a fight, her husband pulled out a gun and told her if she didn’t kill him now he’d be coming for her later. When leaving the room, Lyn shot Kevin in the back of the head killing him instantly. She was convicted of murder, but when brought before the Manitoba Court, she was acquitted of the charges. An appeal was made to the Manitoba court of Appeal on the grounds that expert testimony should not be admitted as evidence in the courts. They argued that the jury was perfectly
The prosecution suffered from staggering tunnel vision in Morin's guilt. Their entire case for both trials was built on a few arguably points. There was the "evidence" of Morin's opportunity to commit the crime, the supposed confessions during interrogation, h...
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 as well. 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,...
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’.
The courthouse was crowded, all seats were taken and many were standing in the back. It was silent, no one spoke, not even a baby cried out. There was the Judge sitting in the front of the room, the defendant, the solicitor, and the jury. I was a member of the jury that day. Everyone knew the truth, the defendant was innocent, and the evidence that was established was supportive and clear. The jury’s decision however, was not based on evidence, but on race. A jury is supposed to put their beliefs aside and make a decision based on the information given during the trial. Jury members must do their duty and do what is right. I tried to do what was right, but all the other members of the jury were blind. They chose to convict because of skin color than actual evidence from the case. I wanted to avoid this disease, but it is easily spread from one person to another. It made me angry that an innocent man was convicted for something he did not even do. He was convicted because of his skin color and nothing else. When the judge asked us to leave the courtroom to make a decision, we stayed o...
The mistakes that were made in the trial would later be recognized as a violation of Baltovich’s right to a fair trial. On December 2, 2004, a retrial for Baltovich was ordered.
One of the things that makes the Apology so successful writing is the way that is written, at base, the record of a trial. By their extremely nature, trials have a tendency to be sensational and fascinating issues, particularly when,
In closing, the criminal trial process has been able to reflect the morals and ethics of society to a great extent, despite the few limitations, which hinder its effectiveness. The moral and ethical standards have been effectively been reflected to a great extent in the areas of the adversary system, the system of appeals, legal aid and the jury
The book Acquittal by Richard Gabriel states, “juries are the best judges in the system. They are not elected, they don't have the high-powered microscope of appellate review or the stern, disapproving-schoolmarm precedent looking over their shoulder, and they have no interest in the outcome of the case.” For this reason, we can come to the conclusion that the use of juries in a trial is the best for all involved in the legal system. While juries, “are the best judges in the system”, lawyers, jury consultants, and jury scientists are the reasons they are viewed this way. It is their job to make sure that not only their client, but everyone has a fair and unbiased trial.Making sure that “the best judges in the system” are fair and unbiased takes a lot of planning, research, and effort. You must research the jurors, understand how they think, what their morals are, and how they would view this case. “It is a constructed reality, cobbled together by shifting memories of witnesses, attorney arguments, legal instructions, personal experiences, and beliefs of jurors.”(Gabriel
It was not a good idea to take a vote without a discussion, because the other jurors do not know other opinions that might change their mind. The eighth juror voted not guilty because he did think about all of the details that happened the night of the murder. It turned out that the jurors had over looked a few
Simpson murder trial, there are a couple of things that piqued my interests. One was the notorious car chase down the Los Angeles freeway in a white Ford Bronco driven by AL Cowlings with O.J. Simpson hiding in the back. Robert Shapiro was supposed to surrender his client to the Los Angeles Police Department, but instead it is my opinion that O. J. Simpson lawyers and friends came up with a plan to get publicity and supporters. The second was the most crucial point of the trial is when O.J. Simpson squeeze his hand into the leather glove that was linked to the killings. This led to the famous argument by Johnnie Cochran “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” As the years passed by many untold stories are revealed. A recent new documentary states that “Simpson had stop talking his arthritis medicine two weeks” in advance so his hands would be swollen to persuade the jury of his innocents.
The jurors had several conflicts in disagreeing with each other and it didn't help that they would shout over one another. The very first conflict is when juror 8 voted not guilty against the 11 guilty votes. The other 11 jurors don't seem to want to hear this man out; they don't want to hear why he has voted not guilty. Some of these men, jurors 3 and 7, just want to get this case over with so they can get on with their lives. They don't think it is imperative enough to look over the evidence and put themselves in the place of the defendant. They get upset with this man and try to get him to vote guilty.
She explained that his involvement in the crime was not excessive and that it was his brother who was the leader. She went on to describe his eight previous arrests for crimes like robbery and cocaine possession. Given his long history she said she was not surprised to see him involved in this kind of case. Because of his other charges I thought the prosecutor was going to suggest the higher end of the sentencing guidelines. However, as she continued I realized I was incorrect. Instead of focusing on his previous crimes she talked about how he needed rehabilitation. She emphasized recovery from his current lifestyle more than sending him to prison again. She brought up his involvement in his church and his successful marriage and questioned why he would throw all of that away. She also suggested that he turn to his church and his wife for support and to aid him in his battle with addiction. Throughout the case, the prosecutor was compassionate and seemed more like a disappointed parent to the defendant rather than angry. The one time the prosecutor did act somewhat harsh was towards the middle of her statement. She brought up the fact that the defendant had previous medical conditions such as a stab and shot wounds. She suggested that the defense had asked for these injuries to be taken into account when the sentence was decided on. She was adamant that the court should not take