Yesterday, Sloan Jackson, age 18 was put on trial for stealing a shirt from Famous Fashions in Merchandise Mall. He supposedly ran out of the store with a lump (which was the same color as the stolen shirt) in his jacket to go to Record Mart because there was a big sale going on. He then was found sitting next to the yogurt stand and the shirt was found in a trash barrel near the yogurt stand. He then ran away from the security guard but he was in the end caught and brought back to the store to return the shirt. At the trial yesterday the jury came to a verdict of being guilty after talking in the jury room for about 10 minutes.
In December of 1674, John Sassamon set off to, allegedly, warn Governor Josiah Winslow that, “the Wampanag sachem (New England Indian hereditary leader) King Philip […] was preparing for war against the English settlers” (p. 1). Unfortunately, Sassamon did not return from his journey and, on January 29, 1675, was found dead in an icy pound with his “hat, a gun, and a brace of ducks” nearby (p. 1). On March 1, 1675, three Wampanoag Indians – Tobias, Mattashunnamo, and Wampapaquan – were indicted for Sassamon’s murder (p. 100). Based on New England’s legal system, Tobias, Mattashunnamo, and Wampapaquan did receive a fair trial in that the case was tried in a General Court, and not dealt with privately between the Indian groups as was customary (p. 103).
Ladies and gentlemen, of the jury we are here today to find justice for the deceased, Chris Pavano who was shot and killed by the defendant, Jordan Abrams. Today I and the state of New Jersey ask you to ask yourself, if your child or your friend’s child suddenly never came home would you want their to be justice for their murderer? Would you want their murderer walking free while you or your friend mourned for the person they murdered. If you, the jury allow Jordan Abrams to walk free than that will just show other murderers that they can get away with such a heinous crime. Jordan Abrams stands accused of murder in the 1st degree, aggravated manslaughter in the 2nd degree, reckless manslaughter in the 2nd degree, possession of a weapon for an
Jurors should not know anything about a specific case and not follow public affairs and read the news (Doc F). When a person is selected to be part of a jury, they have to say an oath stating that they will not use their emotions to determine the verdict of a trial. If a juror is caught using their emotions, they will be fined for a crime called perjury. Since there are twelve people in a jury, there is a variation of opinions when the jury decides a verdict. But, a judge is more professional and knows how to only use the evidence provided and be less biased.
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.
Another reason citizens question juries is that they have bias from personal experience or the media. The defendant and the prosecution criticize the jury system because the actual jurors may not understand the situation from any point of view because they come from different lifestyles (Doc E). The American jury system is not a good idea anymore because juries are not experts in law, they have bias, and are not “a jury of peers”. Because jurors are not experts in law, they are subject to be
Twelve Angry Men is in many ways a love letter to the American legal justice system. We find here eleven men, swayed to conclusions by prejudices, past experience, and short-sightedness, challenged by one man who holds himself and his peers to a higher standard of justice, demanding that this marginalized member of society be given his due process. We see the jurors struggle between the two, seemingly conflicting, purposes of a jury, to punish the guilty and to protect the innocent. It proves, however, that the logic of the American trial-by-jury system does work.
What if one day, twenty years from now you were chosen to discuss the fate of an eighteen year old boy. What would you do? Would you take your job and do it responsibly, or would you do it like some of the Jurors in 12 Angry Men and blow it off so you can finish early and leave. Even though there was a lot of controversy in that jury room, I noticed that Jurors 3,7, and 9 used their personalities, beliefs, and views of their responsibilities to bring the boy on trial to justice. This very excitable juror is the last to change his vote, and while his stubbornness could be seen as being based more on emotions than facts, he starts off with his little notebook with facts of the case and tries to insist that he has no personal feelings on the matter.
The American Government is made up of three branches: judicial, legislative, and executive. Americans are very fortunate to have a judicial system in the United States, which is based on the idea that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The same problems still happen today in 2018 that happened in 1957 when the movie Twelve Angry Men by MGM was made. Common reasons jury duty is not popular include taking time off work, not getting the same amount of pay as if one is at work, and simply just not wanting to be there. People will always be biased from their own experiences.
Juror #3 mixed his personal conflicts with his son running away from home to the young man accused of hurting his father. His assumption was that young men who don't get along with their fathers might go as far as to kill him. Which is a very informal practice in a small group setting. Another incident of a informal role is to not provide the evidence first hand how can a room full of jurors decide the fate of somebody when they don't have precise evidence to incriminate him. Other jurors based the fact that the accused lived in a slum and that slum residents are delinquents by nature.
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.
Therefore, he tried to make the trial go faster by voting with the side with the most votes. My family in the real world also had to go through inconvenience of the jury duty. My cousin had her first prom and my Aunt got called for jury duty. She couldn’t help her daughter do her hair, makeup, and get pictures. My moms friend also had a conflict with the jury duty.
When the case involves a battered woman seeing all the violence done to her would be really painful. Just cannot see how someone could do it to someone they love The hardest part of being a jury member in a criminal case would be the sentencing to make the decision to put that criminal in prison. If the verdict is in prison for life or life without parole. This experience is going to stay with you from now on wondering if you did the right thing.
In this paragraph, the advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury will be discussed. The main advantages are that juries introduce community values into the legal process and can influence the system (Joyce, 2013); they can achieve a sense of equity and fairness without enforcing unjust laws; in addition, juries are independent and neutral (Davies, 2015). Moreover, they guarantee participation from the public in a democratic institution (Hostettler, 2004), and represent the population thanks to the randomness with which jurors are decided (Davies, 2015). On the other hand, the most important disadvantages are that jurors have no prior contact with the courts, no training (Hostettler, 2004) and therefore they lack knowledge of law, courtroom proceedings (Joyce, 2013), and lack of ability to understand the legal directions (Thomas, 2010). Moreover, they must face evidence which is highly technical (Hostettler, 2004).
