During the description of the cross examination, I found it interesting how Burnette wanted the prosecution to lose, simply because of the over zealous reenactment of how the murder went. It’s interesting to see how quickly ideas can change, simply because one of the teams represents itself in an unflattering manner. I’m curious as to how the jury would have seen the cross examiner if he hadn’t put forth such a display, and whether or not that would have greatly impacted the results of the case.
Something I found interesting, was the fact …show more content…
They had all heard the same case, but due to the vast differences in their personal lives, they had all come to different conclusions. With two very strong willed and different individuals arguing, I found it surprising that they had managed to reach a point in which they decided a compromise was best. The idea of compromise, however, brought something completely different into account, the relationship of law and justice. The distinction between the two is very interesting, what really draws the line between the two? Does justice appeal more to emotion and law more to logistics? If that’s the case then how can someone reasonably mix the two in order to get a fair punishment if one is