Verdict Essays

Developing A Connection The Verdict In The Verdict, (1974) Sidney Lumet directed Paul Newman’s portrayal of Frank Galvin, an alcoholic lawyer hoping to get his life and his career back on track. An old friend gives Frank a lead on a medical malpractice case. Frank talks with relatives of the victim and makes notes about how much money he might make. Frank starts to review the paperwork, changes his mind, and visits the woman who would be his client. Wearing a black suit, black tie, and a white

A directed verdict occurs in a jury trial when an order is made by a trial judge instructing the jury to return a specific verdict. (Legal Dictionary, 2017) Directed verdicts apply to both civil and criminal trial cases. If a judge feels that the plaintiff has presented all of his or her evidence at trial; however, the plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proof; therefore, the defendant may move for a directed verdict, also known as a judgment of acquittal. (Hall, 2014) The trial judge reviews

the majority of the world, there are three verdicts available in a Scottish criminal trial - guilty, not guilty, and not proven. However, the not proven verdict has long been the subject of much debate and controversy. Since its introduction in 1728, the not guilty verdict has gained wide acceptance, rendering the not proven verdict outdated and unnecessary. There is no discernable difference between the repercussions of a not proven and a not guilty verdict - both are acquittals and have no legal

While watching “The Verdict” I saw several terms and actions that I learned about in class over the past unit. I could see the type of judge that was portrayed in this film, how the lawyers behaved, and each side 's story. I felt this story really tried to portray the larger image cast throughout the story arc. Despite what the main trends indicated in the plot, the moment to moment interactions created a more prominent and relevant development to the understanding of law and order. As the story

guilty. Juror #8 defended his opinion saying he did not say the young man wasn’t guilty, but that he was not sure. He could not imagine going through with a guilty verdict for a young, scared man who was hanging on

finding the verdict for the court trial. In the US Constitution under the sixth amendment, this helps establish the procedures and right in criminal prosecutions and also gives some protections to the criminal. It is important to have an impartial jury and to be well informed on the cases. In the film the jury is tasked with finding the verdict of a young teen charged with the murder of his father. They have heard and seen the evidence involved and now they must come up with a verdict. In the film

12 Angry Men" focuses on a jury 's deliberations in a capital murder case. A 12-man jury is sent to begin deliberations in the first-degree murder trial of an 18-year-old man accused in the stabbing death of his father, where a guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence. The case appears to be open-and-shut: The defendant has a weak alibi; a knife he claimed to have lost is found at the murder scene; and several witnesses either heard screaming, saw the killing or the boy fleeing the scene

Justice “It`s better to risk saving a guilty person than condemn an innocent one” Stated By a French author Called François-Marie Arouet (Arouet 8). A reasonable doubt is nothing more than a doubt for which reasons can be given. The fact that 1 or 2 men out of 12 differ from the others does not establish that their doubts are reasonable. Twelve Angry Men is a play by Reginald rose, this play was set in 1957 at the New York City court of law jury, which it shows the conflict in the 12 jurors. The

by Sidney Lumet, the director shows the importance of standing up for what you believe in through Juror 8. In the movie, an 18-year-old boy is on trial for the murder of his father. The Twelve Angry Men compose of the jury tasked to determine the verdict. Juror 8 whose name is Davis was the only juror to vote not guilty in the first vote by the jury. Over time and heated discussion, he is able to sway the jury and ultimately prove that the kid is not guilty. Davis was able to sway the jury due to

testified… she rolled and looked casually out the window… I say she saw only a blur.” These scenes added to the drama as more of jurors reevaluate their vote to not guilty, notably leaving juror number 3 stubbornly in the verdict of guilty. When one remembers all but No.8 were in the verdict of guilty because a majority saw only a kid from the slums. In fact, juror no.4 stated “ … he’s a product of a filthy neighborhood… slums are breeding grounds for criminals... slum backgrounds are potential menaces

power of determining the fate of an uneducated teenage Puerto Rican boy who was accused of murdering his father with a switchblade and was facing the possibility of the electric chair. The film also depicts a jury attempting to render a unanimous verdict in the murder trial. The process whereby the decision is reached illustrates a situation where a minority transforms the opinion of a majority by exerting persuasive tactics and demonstrating effective leadership. Group dynamics is related with the

Jurors for Justice? What if the justice system wasn’t as unbiased as you thought? Within the play Twelve Angry Men the justice system supposedly chose 12 men to give a fair verdict for a boy that supposedly murdered his own father but, instead some jurors have other plans, bias backgrounds, or predetermined decisions. One way Twelve Angry Men shows an unfair trial is the backgrounds of the jurors. An example of this is when Jurors Four and Ten talk about how kids from bad neighborhoods are very

As a juror, you must render a verdict of guilty or not guilty, and follow the law and do so based on your opinion from the evidence that has presented in court over the last several weeks on the case of Valentine Shortis (Friedland, 1986). After going over my notes from the trial numerous times, the verdict that I have chosen to write down on my ballot is “not guilty.” As a reader, you might not comprehend my reasoning for this vote that goes against all the odds of what the Crown has been trying

Twelve Angry Men dates back to 1957 when twelve jurors are sitting in front of a murder case. The murder case regards a son being accused of stabbing his father to death. As the jury heads into their room to choose their verdict, the vote begins eleven to one. Only one man in that entire room could find the defendant not guilty. That one man, Mr. Davis, decided to be the difference. Through Mr. Davis’ core values, he is able to support that the young boy is not guilty while also helping each man

Whenever people inspect a piece of work and try and figure out what it means 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose is a play about 12 jurors deciding on a verdict for a boy who supposedly committed murder. There is a lot of opinions shared with everyone trying to have the correct verdict that they want and many people may think that this play is just about finding the correct outcome of the case, but it is actually about deeper meaning that Rose wanted the reader to learn. In the play 12 Angry Men by Reginald

The movie “Twelve Angry Men” illustrates how twelve men are the jury reflecting a young man’s life who may or may not be the murder of his father. The main objective at aim is to reach a reasonable agreement by negotiation. The boy’s fate of being not guilty or guilty and being sentenced to death is in the hands of these men. Over the course of the jury’s deliberation, a number of differences take place. In the end, these assorted differences are negotiated and agreed upon. Even though some took

him in years and he want to take out his anger on whoever he can, which just so happens to be the kid on trial. Juror Three’s feelings led him to be prejudice against the kid on trial. At the very end, he becomes visibly upset and give his final verdict, not

collaborate and determine the fate of the defendant. With seemingly substantial evidence, viewers are taken into the jury room, where all but one juror are quick to return a guilty verdict. Although a unanimous finding is required, juror number eight, played by Henry Fonda, questions the evidence, unable to return a verdict without further examination of the documentations and testimonies. Insisting the jury take additional time to analyze reasonable doubt within the evidence, Henry Fonda utilizes critical

In the movie 12 Angry Men, I found that Juror #9 was the most convincing. The old man, who was the first to change his verdict from guilty to not guilty. Juror #9 was able to avoid fallacies in his arguments by avoiding assumptions, valuing the opinion of others, and being open-minded. An example of avoiding assumptions would be when he questions if the defendant is guilty based on the fact that he had a prior criminal record, here he does not jump to conclusions. There is also the example of when

with, and understand the legal constraints placed upon them. Consequently, apart from ambiguous evidence, unclear or difficult instructions may also cause the juror to use their personal beliefs in order to make sense of the case and arrive at a verdict.