Essay On Jury Trial
Having a Jury Trial is known to be a part of the Adversarial System. Which is when exhibits, evidence, and witnesses are assembled by representatives of one side or the other to convince the fact finder that their side’s viewpoint is the truer one. Contrasted to that approach is the inquisitorial approach, used in mostly Europe. In this approach the Judge is given more control over the proceedings. The judge will interrogate the disputing parties and witnesses, referring frequently to a dossier that the court prepared. The Jury Trial is held to get a less biased decision and also a more truthful one. A trial gives attorneys more motivation to present the jury with all the evidence of the case, with a final goal of the jury ultimately
…show more content…
However, if he was a suspected terrorist and was one hundred percent guilty then, I don’t think I would be able to defend him to the best of my ability knowing that he in fact was a terrorist. It would not be fair to him either because he should be defended no matter what. I personally would not be able to try and win a case for someone if I know for a one hundred percent fact and truth that they were guilty of the crime they committed. I wouldn’t even give him a lawyer in the first place but now everyone is provided with representation no matter what. That was not the case until the case of Clarence Gideon. Gideon was not appointed an attorney and ended up losing his case. In prison he wrote up a Pauper’s appeal to the U.S. Supreme court. It stated that in the U.S. constitution that everyone defendant has the right to have the services of a Lawyer. This Law makes sense because everyone has the right to a fair trial and a defendant would never have a fair trial unless they could be represented by a lawyer. This has changed many things and helped turn a lot of cases around. So in other words I personally would not be able to defend him if I knew he was guilty but someone would have to because he has the right to a fair trial and to be represented by an attorney. Someone else might have a different outlook on the case because if
However, if he was a suspected terrorist and was one hundred percent guilty then, I don’t think I would be able to defend him to the best of my ability knowing that he in fact was a terrorist. It would not be fair to him either because he should be defended no matter what. I personally would not be able to try and win a case for someone if I know for a one hundred percent fact and truth that they were guilty of the crime they committed. I wouldn’t even give him a lawyer in the first place but now everyone is provided with representation no matter what. That was not the case until the case of Clarence Gideon. Gideon was not appointed an attorney and ended up losing his case. In prison he wrote up a Pauper’s appeal to the U.S. Supreme court. It stated that in the U.S. constitution that everyone defendant has the right to have the services of a Lawyer. This Law makes sense because everyone has the right to a fair trial and a defendant would never have a fair trial unless they could be represented by a lawyer. This has changed many things and helped turn a lot of cases around. So in other words I personally would not be able to defend him if I knew he was guilty but someone would have to because he has the right to a fair trial and to be represented by an attorney. Someone else might have a different outlook on the case because if