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
Macbeth, the Innocent Good day. Today I will prove to you that Macbeth, the king of Scotland, is innocent. It is outrageous that anyone in this courtroom should think otherwise. There are three key factors to consider before it is possible to make any judgment concerning the murderer of Duncan. First of all, before fingers are pointed at Macbeth, I ask you to consider if he is the only suspicious person? A murderer must have a motive and an opportunity. Obviously, there are several candidates that
The Verdict on Albert Camus’s The Fall As if to mock the crumbling principles of a fallen era, “The Just Judges” preside over a solemn dumping ground of earthly hell. This flimsy legion of justice, like the omnipresent eyes of Dr. T.J. Eckleburg in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, casts a shadow of pseudo-morality over a land spiraling towards pathos. But Albert Camus’s The Fall unfolds amidst the seedy Amsterdam underground--a larger, more sinister prison than the Valley of Ashes,
action. The climate was heated and so too were the members of the jury as the story progressed. The characters grew to understand each other and the audience learns more and more about the individuals. Perhaps, the motive for that said characters verdict or backstory on the matter. A few characters were highly stereotypical and the actors did a worthy job in portrayed them as accurately as possible. For such a short production, it was an extremely elaborate one. The absence of an intermission also
The Verdict of Tom Robinson in Lee's To Kill A Mockingbird A closer look at the ways of the South during the time period 1925 through 1935 reveals the accurate representation of society in Harper Lee’s To Kill A Mockingbird. Many of the fictional events occurring in the novel are closely related to actual historical events that took place in the South during the time period in which the book is set. Most importantly, the trial of Tom Robinson illustrates how life was for a black man in a world
about what happened, all because he is from a troubled background. That is a prejudice because it is not true at all and not based on facts. Not all kids with troubled or violent backgrounds lie. This prejudice idea delayed the jurors from making a verdict many times, because some jurors thought that to be true and took that into consideration with their votes (Twelve Angry
jury voted the first time and saw that one of the jurors thought that the boy was innocent. Then throughout the movie, all of the jurors were slowly convinced that the boy was no guilty. His first rhetoric appeal used was logos. He based his guilty verdict on the logical information provided in the court room. He continued to feel this way until later in the movie when he changed his appeal to pathos. The decision to change his mind was caused by the other jurors starting to change their minds. As
15 Apr. 2014. Tresniowski, AlexHelling, SteveMesser, LesleyMorrissey, Siobhan. "What's Next For Casey Anthony?." People 77.3 (2011): 68. MAS Ultra - School Edition. Web. 14 Apr. 2014. Tresniowski, AlexHelling, SteveTauber, Michelle. "Shocking Verdict!." People 77.2 (2011): 84. MAS Ultra - School Edition. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.
In the play 12 Angry Men there was several prominent secondary conflicts that affect how the verdict concluded. When you say I'm going to kill you do you really mean it? Tension rises in the jury room. Juror 3 is angry and wants to kill 8.” I'm going to kill you” the 3rd juror said, but did he mean it? 12 Angry Men written by Reginald Rose. Anger was fuming in the jury room. Was the boy guilty or not guilty of killing his father? It drove some of the jury to slowly turn on one another. In the
begins with an eighteen year old boy from the ghetto who is on trial for the murder of his abusive father. A jury of twelve men are locked in the deliberation room to decide the fate of the young boy. All evidence is against the boy and a guilty verdict would send him to die in the electric chair. The judge informs the jurors that they are faced with a grave decision and that the court would not entertain any acts of mercy for the boy if found guilty. Even before the deliberation talks begin it
In the play Twelve Angry Men, a tough decision rests in the hands of twelve jurors as they discuss whether or not a minor is guilty of murdering his father. What is originally seen as a very black and white case becomes more complicated when the jurors begin to question if the evidence is enough to convict and execute a teenage boy. In particular, the author, Reginald Rose, includes a juror who unequivocally believes that the defendant is guilty. We soon find out that Juror 3 harbors a grudge against
Jurors’ decisions are affected by emotions and other unspoken thoughts/feelings. Previous research has shown that people make decisions on “quick gut feelings.” The goal of this study is to see if a disgusting stimulus will have an influence on juror decision-making. The research was concerned with the decision-making question of whether or not jurors’ disgust and gut-feeling judgment towards the defendant are key elements in legal settings. This decision will be due to a “quick gut feeling” of disgust
is charged with the murder of his father. This is no trivial decision; all jurors understand that a guilty verdict is an automatic death sentence for the defendant. During the initial verbal vote for guilt or innocence, eleven jurors vote guilty and only one votes not guilty. The rest of the film is about consensus building among the twelve jurors, which eventually come to a unanimous verdict of innocence, consequently saving the life of the teenage boy. During the initial vote, juror number 8 was
books and legal documents. Letters and correspondence were especially beneficial to Herrup because their authors often discussed and questioned the details and contradictions of the case itself, possibly helping her remain agnostic regarding the verdict. Longer manuscripts contained more information but sacrificed "ambiguity for closure" (125). For example, The Arraignment and Conviction of Mervin, Lord Audley presented the Earl's guilt as cut and dry, just like the prosecut... ... middle of
answer when you are not considering a life is on the line. However when a life is on the line, meaning that if the verdict is guilty, the person is automatically sentenced to death, you would hope a jury would be sure that a person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, before sending a person to death. While watching the movie, 12 Angry Men, what seemed to be an open-and-shut guilty verdict for the jury, instead took a viewer through numerous ethical dilemmas, specifically dealing with prejudice, capital
The 12 men in the movie 12 Angry Men, a jury, are deciding upon a case of murder in the first degree. The suspect in custody is an 18-year-old accused of stabbing his father. In this court system, premeditated murder is the most serious crime charged. If the jurors decide that the 18-year-old is guilty of murder than he will be sent to the electric chair and there is no other form of punishment. The men are very reluctant to hear this case because they feel it is very dull and that they can predict
a vote was casted and hastily, all of the jurors with the exception of one voted “guilty.” It then it became that jurors who voted “not guilty” to convince the others or comply with their guilty verdict. After hours of deliberation the jury was able to successfully come to a unanimous “not guilty” verdict. In this case several different kinds of evidence
understand complicated issues that could arise in complex cases. In reaching their verdicts, jurors work to make decisions that are based on evidence that has been presented. Jurors tend to use the evidence deem relevant
We are very fortunate to live in a country where democracy is how we conduct our way of life. One of the great advantages of living here is that if someone is convicted of a crime that innocent until proven guilty. The hope and mission of our judicial system is to correctly convict the people who actually committed the crime. To prove their guilt while also making sure we are not convicting an innocent person. However, our system is not perfect and there are some chinks in our armor. Unfortunately
The book “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is a book about twelve jurors who are trying to come to a unanimous decision about their case. One man stands alone while the others vote guilty without giving it a second thought. Throughout the book this man, the eighth juror, tries to provide a fair trial to the defendant by reviewing all the evidence. After reassessing all the evidence presented, it becomes clear that most of the men were swayed by each of their own personal experiences and prejudices