It is the most direct and impactful way for citizens to participate in the process of bringing
It is the most direct and impactful way for citizens to participate in the process of bringing
During the mock trial, both sides introduced their claims. The prosecuting side argued that Bigger should be sentenced to death and the defense side argued that Bigger acted upon insanity and should be put in rehabilitation. Each side brought up a witness and each witness got questioned from both parties. Prosecution went up first, then defense. After all the questioning of the witnesses, both sides got to close with their conclusions. The overall case went very well. Each side did a great job, this including my opponents. Obviously I didn’t want my opponents to do well, but they did a very great job. Each witness had played their roles very well and looked prepared when coming up to the stand. The prosecuting team’s lawyers, were as well, great at their roles. They asked questions that provoked my defense side’s witnesses, but we did well in answering them. Coming to this point, was easy and fun to do.…
On first arriving to the Crown Court I immediately felt a feeling of anxiety, almost as if I was about to stand trial myself. This led me to a moment of reflection on how those around me, the family of those awaiting trial and in some cases those awaiting trial themselves must be feeling. Many anxious faces sat around…
Greeting courtroom members, I am Shaneka Lewis apart of the Defence Attorney and I will be representing my client Donovan Tisi pleading not guilty upon the robbery and bodily harm charges. On December 5th 2013 at 5:30 PM, Anver Williams had claimed to be walking home from his basketball practice where he perhaps had been wearing his brand new basketball sneakers. As Mr. Williams was walking home he decided to take a short-cut home from a dark alley way that leads to Eglinton Ave. As Anver Williams was walking he seemed to come across a group of older men. Anver Williams explained how the young men approached him and toke away his hat and his sneakers after while being brutally attacked. My question and argument court, is to why my client Donovan is being called upon out of all of the young men who had claimed to be there during this dispute, is there enough proof or evidence to show that Donovan Tisi had been there or even took part in this crime, that Anver Williams is not sure of who had harmed or robbed him? As we are gathered here court I would like you all to investigate or try to find real evidence to prove that it had been my client Donovan that shows his participation in this act.…
Juror #3 came into this trial with a moral dilemma long before hearing the facts of the case. Given his past experiences, he would feel more inclined to vote guilty as to punish and make an example of this boy so that other kids would think twice. In this case if the jury decided on a guilty verdict, the defendant would be put to death. People might make rash decisions based…
For three years in a row the Saint Peter Mock Trial team has made it to state. They would never have been able to accomplish this without the help of the amazing coaches and the dedication of the students. The members of that team graduated last year and the younger kids have to step up and take their place. The team only has three coaches and around thirty members this year, three times more members than the team had three years ago. Only seven of these members have been in mock trial in previous years. Every year the Minnesota State Bar Association comes up with a case for the mock trial competitions. Every year the teams have to learn a completely new case, with different arguments. Every year the coaches have to teach students what took them two to four years to learn in law school. With only three coaches, how are they ever going to be able to teach thirty students the concepts of mock trial? The team needs two separate teams, one high school and one middle school team and more coaches.…
Biased testimony towards the defendant resulted in a prejudice jury. Very frequently, statements like ‘We heard the facts, didn’t we?’ or ‘Pay attention to the facts’ are expressed in the jury room. The 4th Juror cited that the murder weapon was a knife so unique that ‘the storekeeper who sold it to him identified the knife in court and said it was the only one of its kind he ever had in stock.’ The 8th Juror argues that ‘It’s possible that the boy lost the knife and that someone else stabbed his father with a similar knife.’ None of the Juror’s believes this possibility as they have already established their prejudices against the accused. The 10th Juror says ‘Let’s talk facts. These people are born to lie… They think different. They act different.’ These are not ‘facts’ but prejudice opinions made by the 10th Juror about the socio-economic status of the boy. It can assumed that the ‘facts’ presented in this case can be viewed as biased opinions and reports that impairs the true facts.…
It isn’t arduous to see why some may question the efficiency of trial by jury and whether it should, and is able to, continue to discover innocence or guilt. Regarding the trial of Vicky Pryce, the failure of the jury within the hearing conjured ridicule and disdain from the judge and the media. The case deeply unsettled the trust of many in the system. The eight women and four men were dismissed after illustrating “fundamental deficits of understanding” (Jacobson, Hunter & Kirby, 2015, p. 55). Their profuse questions for the judge were deemed as unintelligent and unnecessary and so a costly re-trial was required. Consequently, this ordeal provoked a stronger desire for the abolition of trial by jury, to be replaced by a single judge as a more…
Pre-Trial Conference 10. Service of Process 11. Summons 12. Verdict 13. Voir Dire Dean’s List #3 – Trial Procedures…
The aim of this case is to present a contemporary criminal case. The case must have occurred in the last ten years. It must be an indictable offence, a more serious criminal charge where the defendant has the right to trial by jury and has been found guilty. The analysis of the case will be carried out through the extent which the law balances the rights of victims and offenders.…
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.…
Mock Trial was a great experience for me since it was my first time doing it in my life. My role was an officer called, Officer Low. Officer Low has been on the local police force for eight and a half years. I think my role was not easy because I had to memorize all my lines in order to answer the lawyer’s question. Also, I had to know where the offender Wally Brogue was standing and where the radio, beer and marijuana were on the diagram of David Benning’s and Sara Volsky’s apartment. Plus, I had to be careful and think a lot before I answered the lawyers question because any mistake is a problem. I realized that the lawyers are picky and tricky. For instance, when I told Mr. Allen that the .06 alcohol in his blood is above the limit, he told me it was.08 and back then it was .08 but now it is .05. Therefore, I mistaken and I felt really ashamed because I should know that since I’m an officer. Also, when Mr. Allen asked to question me on the second day of the trail, he started saying, “Yesterday you did not say that Sandra Volsky’s told you that that the assailant might be still in the building.” I am sure I did. However, I did enjoy my role because I always wanted to witness something since I was young. I feel like when I witness an offender I help the court identify if the person is guilty or not. When the lawyers interviewed me, I was told to not mention few things unless the other lawyers ask about it. Also, the crown lawyers warned me to not lie and to be honest and just answer the question without giving much detail because they wanted to use a things to argue it lot of .I thought Sandra Volsky did will on her role because she gave right evidences and she tried to proof that Brogue killed David. She also seemed sad about her boyfriend’s death and looked innocent. Wally Brogue did a good job offending himself and I liked his enthusiasm during the trial. For example, Wally was laughing and said to the lawyer twice, “Do you think I read people’s mind?”…
As we walked into the jury room, after hearing the case of Commonwealth v. Miller, I had already decided how I would vote and, honestly, I determined I was not going to be swayed. We swiftly chose a foreman by appointing the one, who had been given the jury instructions, to that position. Next, we read the jury instructions out loud, in order to remember and understand the definition of each charge. Debate over the meaning of the instructions ensued for a short amount of time before we dove into determining guilt or innocence. Everyone was given a chance to discuss the case and, personally, I felt comfortable entering the discussion and debating the case. After discussion, we voted and were evenly split among guilty or not guilty. Next, we…
The basic division in the structure of criminal courts is between the lower criminal courts – the local courts, Children’s court and Coroner’s court – and the higher criminal courts – the District Court and the Supreme Court. In observing proceedings at the Local, District and Supreme Courts over a period of three days a number of aspects of the criminal justice system were made apparent. The administration, processes and practices of the criminal trial are extremely varied dependent upon the level of criminal court being observed. The distinctions between the workings of the two courts revealed a number of the differences between summary proceedings and trial upon indictment. The cases observed served to provide evidence for the “two tiers of justice” argument. Also the role of the judiciary was perceived as being particularly interesting especially the high level of discretion that they held in the Local Courts and even to an extent in the District Court primarily when there was no jury present.…
We have all gathered here today to bring justice to a poor old man, who was murdered in his own house. Everyone in the court was brought here to decide if this man is guilty of being insane or guilty of murder. The murder confused to stocking this old man and claimed that he killed him because of his eye. The murders cut of all his limbs after killing him and hide him under the floorboard. When police came to his house he confused after a few minutes of silence. After a few days, lawyers, jurors, a judge, an expert, a witness, the murder, and I have all gathered here to bring justice to this old man. From my point of view, as the documenter, this trail seems like a tough decision. As of now I feel like the murder is guilty of 1st degree murder. Now at 1:44 PM the prosecution lawyer begins.…
“Gentleman of the jury, be merciful. For God’s sake, be merciful. He is innocent of all charges brought against him. But let us say he was not. Let us say for a moment he was not. What justice would there be to take this life? Justice gentleman? Why I would just as soon put a hog in the electric chair as this”. (Chap. 1, pg. 8) My analysis of this story weighs on multiple dynamics:…