This court case took place in the United States Supreme Court in the Northern District of Indiana. The plaintiff in this court case is Deborah White, represented by Amanda Babbitt and Jackson Walsh. The defendants are Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern, represented by Benjamin Walton and Jordon Van Meter. Deborah White brought this court case to the Supreme Court in order to argue against the summary judgment filed by the defendents. A summary judgment is granted only if all of the written evidence before the court clearly establishes that there are no disputed issues of material fact and that the party who requested the summary…
The Honorable Donald E. Sheldon is a felony trial judge in Ann Arbor, Michigan and a member of the faculty at Eastern Michigan University. In Sheldon’s article, The ‘CSI Effect’: Does it really exist? that was published in the National Institute of Justice, he discusses the craze around the “crime-fiction television dramas” and the possible effects it has on jurors in their decisions in court cases. (Sheldon, par. 3)With the country in complete fascination with crime-fiction Sheldon found television rating from 2006 that showed that “five of the top ten television programs that week were about scientific evidence in criminal cases. Together they amassed more than 100 million viewers.” (Sheldon, Par. 6) With more than 100 million viewers watching crime-fiction in a given week Sheldon wonders “how many of them report for juror duty the next day?”(Sheldon, Par. 7) If the number is significant does it affect how they will judge the outcome in the courtroom?…
The movie 12 Angry Men depicts a typical scene today: twelve jury members meeting to discuss a case presented to them and determine guilt or innocence of a young man accused of killing his own father. Usually the jury room is a place for discussion and debate, but the evidence has swayed all but one of the jurors into voting guilty. The group in the movie is a jury of 12 men with various backgrounds and age groups. They were placed in a deliberation room where the entire move took place.…
Throughout the years of America, we had many juries during criminal trials to decide if the defendant guilty or not guilty. In the 1957 movie, 12 Angry Men shows the best representation of American jury system and how people change their minds. 12 Angry Men shows that personal feeling get in the way in their votes. The movie is about how 12 jurors decide the fate of young boy that persumed he killed his father, while during the initial vote only Juror 8 raised his hand not guilty. Then throughout the movie and script each of the 11 jurors for various reason change their votes to not guilty. The 12 jurors change their votes from guilty to not guilty through character flaws, positive personality traits, expertise on the evidence, and pattern of behavior.…
Toward the end of the deliberations, the Architect focuses the majority’s attention on the few remaining jurors who are holding out for a guilty…
In Virginia State, Jay Lentz was convicted by a jury in July 2003 for the kidnapping and murder of his wife. The jury recommended that Mr. Lentz spend life in prison; however, the United States District Judge Gerald Lee dismissed the kidnapping charge due to lack of evidence. Two weeks after the judge convicted Mr. Lentz of murder, he found evidence of prosecutorial misconduct therefore the judge ordered a new trial for the alleged murder charge.…
Good morning ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it is our privilege to represent P.J. Long in this case before you today.…
As juror 8's campaign continues, and the seed of doubt planted into the "guilty" minded jury members is fertilised thorough the analysing of facts the reasonable doubt slowly grows in the jurors minds, the audience begin to create an understanding that doubt is an easier state of mind…
- research shows that many jurors form strong opinions after opening statements and interpret all of the subsequent evidence in light of those initial impressions…
In this paper I will provide an analysis of a jury trial; my analysis will focus on the right of the defendant. I will articulate how a defendant 's rights at trial can be assured when it comes to The defendant’s right to a speedy trial, the defendant’s right to an impartial judge and the defendant’s right to an impartial jury.…
In normal cases, jurors are asked to stay away from the media and to avoid anything outside of the information that they are given that could sway their vote. However, as previously stated, in a case with so much public attention, it is nearly impossible to prevent jurors from gaining outside information. Researchers argue that any type of public information given to jurors may be “dangerous” (Kassin, Wrightsman cited in Greene 1990: 440) to said case and could leave a “lasting impression on jurors” (Snyder cited in…
The American jury system, wherein citizens are judged by their peers, is one of the most democratic in the world. Nonetheless our system is far from perfect. There are many dangers in a system in which humans are asked to make decisions that could mean life or death for another person. Bias ranks amongst these dangers for it can affect the way jurors interpret testimonies and facts. Indifference is another factor; it too, can heavily affect a juror’s thinking. Personal feelings and experiences can stand in between a juror and the attainment of truth. The American jury system is intrinsically flawed in that it relies on intrinsically flawed humans to make life or death decisions…
In the United States of America, the criminal justice system is based on the adversarial system or common law system. An adversarial trial allows the accused or defendant to be given a fair chance to prove his or her innocence. The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that the defendant is to be given a fair chance to oppose the prosecution, have witnesses to help with his or her defense, face and question the complainant, and for his or her case to be heard by a group of people who are unbiased and impartial. This group is known as the trial jury.…
There are a number of individuals who make up the courtroom personnel. Each individual whether it be the judge, bailiff, court reporter, courtroom clerk, prosecutor, defense counsel, jury, defendant, or witness contribute to the shaping of legal law. The judge who presides over the trial has the ultimate authority in the courtroom. “The judge must see that the trail is conducted in an orderly manner according to prescribed rules and laws covering the selection of the jury, the presentation of evidence, the arguments of the lawyers, the instructions to the jury, and the rending of the verdict” (Arizona Judicial Branch, 2013, para. 1). Although the judge has the ultimate authority in the courtroom the bailiff is tasked with keeping order during trial or hearings. The bailiff announces entry of the judge, supervises the jury, and calls witnesses…
For this service learning project I went downtown first to the Daley center, then to the Circuit Court of Cook County. While there, I observed various criminal court cases, most which dealt with domestic violence and abuse. There was one particular case that stuck out to me the most. Torense Arnold vs.Latrarice Johnson was the second criminal case, with the man being the defendant against charges of domestic battery, burglary, and felony. Latrice Johnson had described her brutal relationship with Torense as an abusive obsession in which she wanted to get out of. She had been dragged by her hair throughout their house and had nail marks on her hands and face. Torence then pleaded guilty and was held at a 150,000 dollar bond, Latrice was issued an order of protection against him and her siblings.…