Response to Clarence Darrow's Argument in the Henry Sweet Case In responding to Clarence Darrow's arguments in the Henry Sweet case and in the Leopold and Loeb case, there are some considerations that would have to be addressed in the same manner in both cases. The cases however, differ in many ways that would result in very different responses to the cases. An advocate opposing Darrow would face two factors described above. First, simply opposing Darrow creates some necessary response by the advocate, covered by those arguments that remain constant in the two cases. Second, individual aspects of each case dictate specific response by an advocate, which is covered by those arguments that differ in each case. Opposing Darrow would be a daunting task for any attorney, but winning a case against him would not be impossible if the advocate minds both his opponent and his argument. General Response to Darrow: In responding to Darrow generally, there are a number of things that an advocate would have to keep in mind. The advocate would have to be aware of his own presence in the courtroom and how that plays against Darrow's, factors in the case would likely play into this as well. The advocate should show respect for Darrow. He should further point out the aspects of Darrow's arguments as to neutralize them. In any trial, and especially any trial against Darrow, it is important to examine the presence that the advocate opposing Darrow has and mold it so that it can stand up to his or use an attorney who does have a presence that can stand up to Darrow's if possible. This point will be covered more in relation to each individual case. In addressing his opponent, an advocate facing Darrow would do best to rec... ... middle of paper ... ...o Respond to Darrow: Being Darrow's opponent would be difficult for any attorney. It is important to keep in mind not only the case material, but also the general presentation of the attorneys. In terms of the case material, the attorneys should, after considering how the attorneys will credibility and respect, find a strong single theme for the judge or jury to cling to. The theme should be simple an able to be attached to more than one point of the case. Preferably it should be drawn through all of the points of the case. The attorneys should work throughout the case to establish their credibility. The attorneys should find an emotional appeal for their side of the case and exploit it to the extent prescribed by the nature of the case and whom it is being presented to. The information presented should be presented in a persuasive and reasonable manner.
There are certain standards that the courts use to determine competency. In order to find the accused competent, a court should find out by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant has remarkable ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational indulgence. The def...
He requested that the court appoint him counsel in which he was denied due to the state of Florida only appointing counsel to indigent individuals being charged with capital offenses or individuals who were illiterate. With no knowledge or experience in criminal law, Clarence Gideon was forced to defend himself against the court’s prosecutor.
When working with a court appointed lawyer you need to research and follow up on guidelines that carry with your charge. You have to learn how the court system works. Lawyers that are hired by the court to represent the low and middle-income people are lazy in doing their job. There are many reasons why court appointed lawyers don't do their best for their clients involving the court cases.
He also had a very good sense of humor, which sometimes got him into trouble, as in the Scopes case, when complaining to the judge after his request to introduce scientific expert testimony had been rejected said, "Why is it that all of our requests are rejected?" The judge answered, "I hope you do not mean to reflect upon the Court?" Darrow replied, "Well, Your Honor has the right to hope."
As a poor man, Clarence implored his judge to appoint him a lawyer as he couldn’t afford the services of one himself. Sadly, under Florida’s law of the time, the judge was obliged to refuse the poor man’s request since Clarence’s crime was not a capital offense.
The personalities involved only inflamed the situation presented within the Scopes Trial. Darrow, on multiple occasions, was seen as punishing, especially when questioning Bryan on the Bible. An author on Outlook commented, “Darrow’s cross-examination of Bryan was a thing of immense cruelty” (50), and he often went above and beyond what he needed to in order to prove a point. The two men believed their purposes within the trial were to rip each other apart. Regardless of the final verdict, they both claimed themselves as victor and announced that they were able to shut down their opponent in court. In terms of personalities, the two men were shocking similar. Both Bryan and Darrow were bold, blunt, unapologetic men who firmly, unwaveringly
Lawyers should be expected to vouch for the true evidence they present in court; as long as it is legitimate and reliable. Personal connections and investments made during a trial will create an obvious bias, but intentionally seeking unreliable and tenuous evidence is immoral to the case, and is where the boundary should be drawn. In "Witness for the Prosecution", Mr. Mayherne did not do enough to support Mr. Vole's actual case, but the one he wanted to believe; going out of his way to find evidence that supported Mr. Vole's claims without actually investigating his statements in a credible manner. Mr. Mayherne should not have worked mostly on developing the evidence of the letter he rooted out of a fictitious source, but rather the evidence
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defense, a 19 year old boy Carl Gallagher is being wrongly accused for the homicide of his father. After hearing the prosecution's statement your mind can be persuaded as to why Carl could be guilty, but he is not guilty. The evidence shown by the prosecution is not a substantial foundation for the whole case to set it self upon. Think of a man who would kill his own father. Now does that man fit the representation and story of the young man Carl? For me certainly not. See through the empty spaces and realize those spaces are necessary for the proper functioning of a young adult.
While analyzing the movie “Cobb” directed by Ron Sheldon, produced by David V. Lester there are many ethically incorrect things that come to mind when hearing the name Ty Cobb. Cobb is the self-proclaimed ‘best baseball player of all time’. Cobb is the opposite of what the author of our textbook Robert Schneider describes as deontological. Cobb never seemed to “act solely based on moral principles that we would want moralized: (pg. 19).” This shows when he is so rude to the black man who ran out of his house at the beginning of the movie and refused at first to give him a ride during a blizzard to the nearest town. Ty Cobb seemed to never treat anyone how he would want to be treated, and the twisted thing is by watching this movie you learn that “everyone hated him, and he loved it.” Ethically and morally Ty Cobb seems to be everything that your parents
During the opening statement, while both defense attorneys displayed a keen knowledge and comprehension of the case, Ms. Sabahat Ibrahim and her partner, Ms. Hiba Mohammad, lacked in regards to passion and speaking loudly. Ms. Ibrahim’s questions demonstrated dexterity, but could have been improved through clarification, as many witnesses were confused. Ms. Nusaiba Baqibillah, however, spoke clearly and loudly. Her dynamic with her fellow prosecutor, Ms. Noorulhuda Qasim, resembled a “bad cop, good cop” routine that often times forced the witness to retract or rethink a statement. Ms. Baqibillah and Ms. Qasim could have mentioned the fact that Napoleon was kind to the nine puppies and sheep to show how he was kind to non-pig
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Smith, C. E. (2004). Public defenders. In T. Hall, U.S. Legal System (pp. 567-572-). [Ebscohost]. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook
Columbia Law Review, 104, 1-20. doi:10.2307/4099343. Reynolds, S. (2009). The 'Standard'. An interview with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
In the film, A Civil Action, Trial Procedure was shown throughout the entire movie. There are many steps that need to be completed before a verdict and judgment can be reached. These steps are the pleadings, methods of discovery, pretrial hearings, jury selection, opening statements, introduction of evidence, cross examinations, closing arguments, instructions to the jury, and the verdict and judgment. The case in this movie was actually called Anderson v. Cryovac. The plaintiffs are the Anderson family, the Gamache family, the Kane family, the Robbins family, the Toomey family, and the Zona family. The plaintiffs’ attorneys are Jan Schlichtmann, Joe Mulligan, Anthony Roisman, Charlie Nesson, and Kevin Conway. The two co- defendants are W.R. Grace and Beatrice Foods. The two co-defendants’ attorneys are William Cheeseman, Jerome Facher, Neil Jacobs, and Michael Keating.
The reason I believe this is the best course of action to take for my client is because I want my client to have a fair trial, even though there is a chance the judge will not recuse himself and it may cause animosity. I believe that as the defense attorney I have a duty to my client and I also have a moral obligation to expose the judge and prosecutor’s relationship regardless of the consequences, good or