(P2) In the short story “Witness for the Prosecution”, Mr. Mayherne, a lawyer defending a man accused of first degree murder (Leonard Vole), gets a guilty man off free. Mr. Mayherne is persuaded by Leonard and convinces himself that he IS innocent. He seems to become completely blind to the actual facts.
(P3) In the movie Primal Fear, Martin Vail, is a lawyer of a man also accused of first degree murder. His client, Aaron, is a very charming and innocent character. It follows the exact story line as “Witness for the Prosecution”, he convinces Mr. Vail that he is innocent. Although it is slightly different. Aaron in this movie is shown to have a split personality. So once Martin sees this, he may get him off death row due to insanity. It’s
In the court room Mr. Hooks makes a point with the evidence he is given and testimonies by witnesses to prosecute Mr. Miyamoto. Mr. Hooks takes some drastic measures by using personal attacks and being prejudice towards the defendant to convince the jurors that Mr. Miyamoto is a killer. During the trail Alvin hooks b...
Justice for Sparkle helps to create an impressionable mark on the persisting prejudice that the United States still faces today. It illuminates the long lasting history of racism that has been integrated into society, especially within the United States. This documentary goes beyond the confinement of the broad spectrum of racism by looking closely at a specific case, in which race can ultimately lead to death. When the documentary was finished, I was fascinated by the motive and thought that was put into this plan in order for it to be executed properly as well as how this topic remains relevant in my own household, considering my mother is the only one in her family to married outside of her race, causing my relatives to not be supportive
Released in 1989, Crimes and Misdemeanors outlines the lives of two men; Cliff Stern and Judah Rosenthal. Cliff Stern, a small time film-maker, struggles to succeed in both his career and marriage. While Judah Rosenthal, a wealthy ophthalmologist, faces moral dilemmas after having an affair with a young mistress. Judah's mistress expects him to leave his wife and when he doesn't she threatens to expose the secret relationship. Unsure Judah contemplates whether or not killing the mistress, to protect his comfortable lifestyle, is morally comprehensible. Ultimately, Judah decides to pay for the murder and gets away with it. Surrounding Judah's decision and Cliff's struggles, minor characters emerge within the plot embodying specific philosophical viewpoints. One of these characters is a professor and philosopher named Louis Levy who voices the importance of love. Shortly before committing suicide Levy says something rather ambiguous about love; "it is only we, with our capacity to love, that give meaning to an indifferent universe; and yet, most human beings seem to have the ability to...
Kassin, Saul, and Lawrence Wrightsman (Eds.). The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedure. Chapter 3. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1985. Print.
... others that as soon as they claim they hear voices or are claim they killed someone because they did not like the way a person’s eye looked that they can get off on a lighter sentence. The defendant has planned all of this out, and if it works out the way he has planned it, there will be a murderer released from a mental institution after a short period of time instead of being locked up for the rest of his life with the other criminals like he deserves. If this person were insane, he would have not have mentioned anything about the old man’s fortune if it were so unimportant that he would have never mentioned it at all. The States believes that the defense has failed to prove it burden of 51% and this man must be convicted and sent to a prison before he murders someone else and uses “insanity” as an excuse again.
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
The ways in which truths are presented to external audiences concerning outside characters display not only a good judgment of character on the presenter, but furthermore, the often insignificant nature of whom the presenter is talking about, even if the insignificance presented is accidental. Both Peter Shaffer’s Equus and Albert Camus’ The Stranger approach different ways in presenting the truths of Alan Strang and Meursault to the audience/jury, but one thing remains clear; intentional or unintentional manipulation of these characters leads to the eternal distrust of the reliability of their presenters, Martin Dysart and the members of the law.
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.
This paper will present a compare and contrast of the short story, "Witness for the Prosecution" to the screenplay of the same name written by Agatha Christie. The focus of the similarities and differences will be, a review of the characters and the story.
Debated as one of the most misrepresented cases in American legal history, Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald still fights for innocence. Contrary to infallible evidence, prosecution intentionally withheld crucial information aiding MacDonald’s alibi. Such ratification included proof of an outside attack that would have played a major role in Jeffrey’s case.
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...
In the following paragraphs, a brief summary of both stories will be given. I will be discussing why the lawyer renounces the money. Then, I will be analyzing what this abandonment tells us about the lawyer’s worldview in comparison to that of the Madman.
For example, the old man that lived beneath the boy and his father testified that he heard a fight between the boy and the father and heard the boy yell, “I’m gonna kill you,” along with a body hitting the ground, and then claims that he saw the boy running down the stairs. With this information, along with other powerful eyewitness testimonies, all but one of the jury members believed this boy was guilty. The power of eyewitness testimony is also shown in Loftus’s (1974) study. In this study, Loftus (1974) found that those who claimed to “see” something were usually believed even when their testimony is pointless. She discovered in her study that only 18 percent of people convicted if there was no eyewitness testimony, 72 percent of people convicted when someone declared, “That’s the one!”, and even when the witness only had 20/400 vision and was not wearing glasses and claimed “That’s the one!”, 68 percent of people still convicted the person. This proves that in 12 Angry Men and Loftus (1974) study, eyewitness testimony is very powerful and influential in one’s decision to convict a
... believed in the innocence of the young man and convinced the others to view the evidence and examine the true events that occurred. He struggled with the other jurors because he became the deviant one in the group, not willing to follow along with the rest. His reasoning and his need to examine things prevailed because one by one, the jurors started to see his perspective and they voted not guilty. Some jurors were not convinced, no matter how much evidence was there, especially Juror #3. His issues with his son affected his decision-making but in the end, he only examined the evidence and concluded that the young man was not guilty.
The film, Spotlight, directed by Tim McCarthy and written by McCarthy and Josh Singer, was a fantastic journey into the world of investigative journalism. Investigative journalism is when reporters go out and make it their mission to investigate certain topics. They take months or years even to fully prepare to release a story that brings serious issues to the attention of the people, especially the authorities. Not everyone agrees with their type of work, especially in today's times when people can write about anything whether it is legitimate or not. Spotlight's themes coordinate with the idea of investigative journalism and justice from beginning to end. The incredible main characters such as Mike Rezendes (Mark Ruffalo), Walter