Recommended: The guilt analysis
The Port Arthur Massacre occurred on the 28th and 29th of April 1996 in Port Arthur, Tasmania, Australia. Martin Bryant is undoubtedly guilty for the murder of 35 people along with 20 people injured as he had the motive due to being socially inappropriate, mentally disabled, and infused with a high level of frustration and anger towards others. Similarly, witnesses report seeing him at the scene of the crime and time frames noted by those who saw him, place him at Port Arthur on the day this event took place. Further to this, though he initially denied having anything to do with it, he later confessed at the court hearing, and admitted his guilt. Martin Bryant is undoubtedly guilty for the murder of 35 people along with 20 people injured as he had the motive due to being socially inappropriate, mentally disabled, and infused with a high level of frustration and anger
OJ Simpson was a very achieved person player until he made one big mistake. The trial of OJ Simpson was a long stressful process to prove a star innocent or guilty of murder. This took Place in the state of California on October 3, 1995. OJ was tried for a murder crime of his ex-wife and another man. In the end OJ turned out to be not guilty of this crime.
Hadley DeCook 502 S. 5th St. Eldridge, IA 52748 May 15, 2023 Scott County Courthouse 400 W. 4th St. Davenport, IA 52801 Dear Jury Members: Mr. Bennett was just enjoying his night at a party while having drinks with his friends and dancing. However no one could have predicted how much the night took a turn. Instead of partying he was accused and arrested for the murder of Mr. Adams in which he didn’t commit. Mr. Bennett should be found not guilty of murder because there is reasonable doubt.
He argues that there is reasonable doubt in the case and that the accused might not be guilty. Juror #8's credibility is further strengthened when he produces a similar knife that the accused used to kill the victim and shows that the knife is not as unique as the prosecution claimed it to
Juror 8 took it into his own hands to prove the prosecution wrong and purchase the same knife at a
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you are here because one person in this courtroom decided to take law into her own hands. The defendant, Mrs. Dominique Stephens, murdered the man that she vowed to love. This sole act by the defendant is violation of all morals and her husband’s right to live. Afterwards, she even felt guilty about this violation of justice and called the cops on herself, and she later signed a written statement stating that she is guilty of the murder of Mr. Donovan Stephens. Then the defendant later recanted this statement and said that she only killed Mr. Stephens in self defense.
The reason O.J. was found not guilty of murder and acquitted in criminal court, but found guilty of the tort of harm and ordered to pay damages in the civil court lies in the structure of our legal system, in regards to criminal cases and civil cases. The distinct difference between criminal cases and civil cases provides further explanation regarding the O.J. Simpson case. Criminal cases deal with crimes against society. It is the government, not the victim, who brings action against the charged individual. In criminal cases, the penalties can include a number things including jail time.
Davis, the first juror to vote not guilty, ignored his emotional attachment to the first-degree murder case and thought purely around the evidence the boy and the witnesses provided to the court. The other jurors said, “eleven men and you think he’s guilty, nobody has to think about it twice except you.” They said this in accordance to system 1 and original response to the stories told in the court. Otherwise, not once did Mr. Davis refer to system 1 through laziness. Mr. Davis spent the entirety of that hot day in a room with eleven other men, spending every second he had on convincing them of the potential error that could have been made in convicting the young boy.
OJ Simpson was an idolized NFL player, actor, and broadcaster. He was loved by all and defied all racial barriers during the 1900s. People didn’t see him for the color of his skin, they saw him as an American hero. This was until June 12, 1994 when Nicole Simpson, OJ Simpson’s ex wife, as well as Ronald Goldman were found murdered. This was the beginning of the end of most Americans respect and adoration for OJ Simpson.
For those people that were alive and glued to their television set in the 1990’s, they know the person, the drama, and the famous trial that is the OJ Simpson murder case of 1995. However, if this event occurred before you were born or if you did not pay attention to the news, this murder trial was the subject of conversation for years on end. This trial included the plaintiff, also known as the state, accusing a former NFL running back, Orenthal James “the juice” Simpson or known as OJ, of murdering his wife, Nicole Brown Simpson and an innocent bystander, Ronald Goldman. Although he was found not guilty in the LA County Superior Court, the opposite ruling was reached in civil courts. Despite all of this controversy, he remains one of the
A group of juror comprising of 12 men from diverse backgrounds began their early deliberations with 11 of ‘guilty’ and 1 of ‘not guilty’ verdicts. Juror 8 portrayed himself as a charismatic and high self-confident architect. Initially, Juror 1 who played the foreman positioned himself as self-appointed leader of the team in which has led his authority to be challenged as his leadership style lacked in drive and weak. In the contrary, Juror 8 is seen as the emergent leader considering his openness to probing conversations while remaining calm. Implying this openness to the present, it has become crucial that a good decision relies on knowledge, experience, thorough analysis and most importantly critical thinking.
OJ Simpson is Indeed Innocent “If it doesn’t fit, you have to acquit,” this quote said by one of OJ Simpson’s attorneys, Johnny Cochran, is widely known for its impact on the controversial case of OJ Simpson. From 1994-1995 OJ Simpson was known as one of the most controversial cases in the USA due to the verdict that OJ was innocent of the murders of his ex wife and one of her friends. On June 12, 1994 Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman met an untimely demise, and the only suspect the police ever reviewed was OJ Simpson. OJ was later caught in a low speed chase in a white Ford Bronco before being taken into custody and put on trial. In the sensationally controversial court case involving OJ Simpson as a suspect for murder, The innocent ruling
12 Angry Men Interview Interview script: Juror No. 8 [The interviewer stands and greets Juror No. 8. He takes off his coat and sits down.] Interviewer: [smiling gently] Hello No. 8, how are you?
The script introduces the viewers to the typical behavior and the state of mind of these jurors, who surprisingly turn out to be the last to change their opinions from “guilty” to “not guilty”. Juror#3 the frustrated father whose personal conflicts and experiences influence his view of the accused’s crime is very desperate to make it clear that his mind is already made up before the deliberations even start. Similar
In a New York City, an 18-year-old male from a slum is on a trial claiming that he is responsible for his father death by stabbing him After both sides has finished their closing argument in the trial, the judge asks the jury to decide whether the boy is guilty or not The judge informs the jury decided the boy is guilty, he will face a death sentence as a result of this trial The jurors went into the private room to discuss about this case. At the first vote, all jurors vote guilty apart from Juror 8 (Henry Fonda), he was the only one who voted “Note Guilty” Juror 8 told other jurors that they should discuss about this case before they put a boy into a death sentence
