In writing his novel “Monster”, Walter Dean Myers used his experience to keep the judicial system relevant to his points while still realistic. Steve’s attorney, O’Brien, is honest about her role in the system to Steve, telling him, “My job is to make sure the law works for you as well as against you.” Instead of pretending to be crusading for a not guilty verdict, O’Brien tells the truth that she intends to help hunt down the truth both for and against Steve as an unbiased tool of the court. This means that she will insure that the jury’s predispositions do not change their verdicts, that the prejudice of the court doesn’t change the evidence given in court, and that the evidence against Steve is legitimate and/or nonexistent.…
It is understandable that when one is involved in a case that can lead to time in jail, when it is the appellants turn to talk, the appellant might say the wrong thing at the wrong time. It is known that at one point the appellant had said, he had never driven the green Cadillac that belongs to cristabel pierce. However, on page three paragraph nine evidence shows that the appellant was seen driving the green Cadillac. This shows that the appellants purpose of lying was truly to not seem guilty, and to not be incriminated by his actions. The green Cadillac that the appellant was seen driving that day belonged to Cristabel pierce, the mother of his kids. It is not a coincidence that all of the stolen property was found in cristabels house, where the green Cadillac was parked, Hernandez, who lived across the street also testified on page sixteen paragraph thirteen, that he had asked the appellant what he was doing and he replied by saying he was helping Bernadette move her things, that she knew he was there. Which is not true. Therefore, all of those incidents that prove the appellant is not speaking the truth, make him not only loose credibility but makes him seem more guilty.…
Sandra Petrocelli is the prosecuting lawyer and is good. She is pushing for the death penalty. She states that everyone involved in the crime is equally guilty including the one who wrestled for the gun, the robber and the two lookouts. She is trying to prove that Steve knew and associated with the two robbers who are bad characters. He was a lookout for them. Two men, James King and "Bobo" Evans entered a drugstore. They were to rob the owner, Mr. Nesbitt. Little did they know Mr. Nesbitt had a licensed gun. There was a struggle and Mr. Nesbitt was shot dead. There was a woman in the store at the time of the crime and…
After this confusion, a series of events occur in which Stevie gets beat up and told not to interfere with the kidnapping, but finds out they were actually working for Gibson. Finally, the police eventually catch Gibson and get him to tell the truth.…
3. Hurst had bound, gagged, and then stabbed his coworker over 60 times during a robbery at his place of employment. Her body was found in the freezer and the safe opened and missing hundreds of dollars. Witnesses came forth and testified that Hurst had planned to rob the store, and the night that it happened only Hurst and his now deceased coworker were the only two scheduled to work. The judge had instructed the jury that they could convict Hurst of…
One reason I believe that Steve is not guilty is that the two witnesses who accuse him of being the lookout are testifying in order to receive reduced sentences. The first star witness is “Osvaldo Cruz, member of the Diablos as the Tough Guy Wannabe” (18). The second witness…
The prosecution’s evidence was a mere form of judgment and based on eyewitnesses, in which there was a lack of credible evidence that was positively proved in this case. The prosecution’s claim that there were seven witnesses all near Braintree around the time of the crime who claimed that Sacco looked identical to one of the bandits. The prosecution also claimed that a cap with a hole in it was picked up at the crime scene was similar if not identical to one that Sacco previously owned. The hole might have related to Sacco’s workplace where he religiously hung his cap. One of the seven witnesses, Kelley, claimed the cap was the same brand and color related to Sacco. The evidence against Sacco and Vanzetti about the car relates to when they were arrested. Sacco and…
Trail affected Steve’s relationship with his family because his dad doesn’t have a relationship with him anymore. On page 281 Steve says, “My father is no longer sure of who I am.” and also on page 280 he says “He moved away ,and the distance between us seemed to grow bigger and bigger. His parents such as his dad do not know who he is at this point because of him even knowing people such as Bobo and King. Steve himself doesn’t know who he is himself that's why he is continuing to make this movie to find out.…
First things first, the way the jury reviews Stevens case, they review his case by looking at his background. Stevens’s background is that he lives in the ghetto of Harlem New York, and hangs out with the wrong people such as the other man on trial, James King. As soon as the judge and the jury reviewed Stevens’s case they immediately said “oh it’s just another black teen on trial he’s guilty”. So thinking that he is guilty the judge sent him to jail for the time being of the case. This brings me to my next point.…
A very significant case in Cook County Courts was the Bridgeport case, known as a “heater” case because of the publicity that surround it, and the racial overtones (Bogira 181). The Bridgeport case involved three white teenagers, Michael Kwidzinski, Jasas, and Caruso that were accused of brutally beating two young black boys who were riding their bikes in the predominantly white neighborhood. The entire summary of the case, in Courtroom 302, was based around the fact that one of the boys, Michael Kwidzinski, was most likely innocent. The question then turns to the boy himself, Michael Kwidzinski; if he was innocent, why did hid then accept a guilty plea bargain?…
The lesson of the story includes a lesson, quote, and an example. In the first place, if someone does something wrong they have to pay the price for their mistake. Being Steve is involved with the crime, he is put in jail. He will go on trial and see if he will get capital punishment, or even a punishment at all. Still, “My job is to makes sure the law works for you as well as against you, and to make human in the eyes of the jury.” Steve’s lawyer wants him to look like an average teenager going to high school, rather than a killer. For example, Steve is nervous, and he shows emotion unlike the others on trial. Steve is not used to being in jail. He talks about how bad it is, along with the trial. Most of the others are not…
The film 12 Angry Men is about a murder trial conducted in a courtroom. The judge gave the jury its final instruction telling them that a guilty verdict will result in a death sentence for the defendant, an 18-year-old boy who was accused of murdering his father using a knife! One juror had a personal connection with the case. He has not seen his son for more than two years. He claims that the young boy is guilty and that all young kids are criminals. The juror has bias towards the trial because he see his son in the young boy. Out of the twelve jurors, eleven jurors voted for conviction. Another juror states that he has doubts about the case and hopes to give the boy a favorable decision. The young boy had a hard life living in the slum. A third juror claims that each of the…
Individuals break crimes all the time but some cases take America by storm with the mass amount of media coverage. The Scott Peterson trail is a prime example of a criminal case that took the nation by storm. What makes the Scott Peterson trail special is the fact that for the first time in California an individual was sentenced to death based solely on circumstantial evidence. In this paper I will be discussing the Scott Peterson case in three key areas background/summary, evidence, and finally crime elements.…
beginning a man was falsely accused of being involved in the incident. He maintained his…
The film “12 Angry Men” is a 1957 drama consisting of a dozen men on jury, who attempt to reach a verdict involving a teenager in a murder case. A guilty verdict was initially predicted, but the jury members start questioning and reasoning the testimonies given in court. Was the boy being accused of stabbing his father really guilty? All the information regarding the timing of the train, the timing of the murder, and the testimonies did not add up. Through much debate, a complex voting process, and many concepts learned through SCOM, the jury managed to attain a not-guilty ruling due to the inadequate testimonies and facts gathered.…