Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Role of prosecutors
Kevin Ton Hannah Geddy, Honors Eng 1 11 October 2014 A Battle of Wits and Morals In a courtroom, there are three parties: the prosecution, the defense and the jury. Each group with their own roles and duties to perform: to find the defendant guilty, to protect the defendant from a guilty verdict, and to hand out a sentence, respectively. When I was just a novice defense attorney in my mid twenties, I was undefeated in my career for about two years without any dishonest practices and I aspired to keep it that way. It all changed when I took on a case for a famous actor by the name of Ka-shi-no. Ka-shi-no had become a suspect in the murder of Lae Ze, a rival actor. The two were the best of comrades until both of their shows debuted. Ka-shi-no …show more content…
Lotsa was arguing to the detective to let her into Lae Ze’s room to check for any scandalous items. Both were trying to lead me onto their side, but unfortunately Pasteboot let the news of Lae Ze’s murder slip out and Lotsa was satisfied and left. After he got over his huge blunder he filled me in of the events that transpired. The victim was Lae Ze and his body was discovered dead inside his room. His estimated time of death was 8:15 according to the hastily-done autopsy report. He didn’t mention any more at the time, but he let it slip that Ka-shi-no was arrested on suspicion of murdering Lae Ze. When I returned to the lobby, distressed Gouda and Pearls were waiting for me. I filled them in on the situation and Gouda even complained how it was just like last time. He then gave me a radio transceiver who told me a bellboy had said it was for the attorney. Pearls had started to worry where Maya had gone, but at that moment the transceiver had began to beep. I asked who the caller was be he stated that I had more things to worry about. At that moment, Maya’s scream rang through the radio yelling for help. The kidnapper threatened to kill her if I refused. After regaining my cool, I immediately asked, “H-How much!?” He told me that what he wanted wasn’t money, but was a complete acquittal of charges for Ka-shi-no. He then stated that Ka-shi-no had not killed anyone, but someone was trying to frame him. The caller then said that the trial was to take place in two days and that I must get an acquittal for him on that day or Maya would die. In my final acts of desperation I asked, “Who are you?” He responded, “Alright I’ll tell you that much. My name is… De
Critical Response: Given the three possible responses from the book, I feel like #2 is the most ethical of the three. However, I feel like all three aren’t satisfactory ways to treat this situation. I will analyze them one by one, then give my opinion of what the salesperson should do.
Spoke to Hannah Santos (DOB 5/22/69) Flores Romero Eduardo (WA# FLOREE*158JJ) who were seating on the side walk in the parking lot of the clubhouse. Santos stated that she was from 365 Constitution Circle and that her boyfriend Eduardo came to visit her. Both parties was advised to leave the clubhouse parking lot and they left without any incidents. No problems appeared to be present at this time.
The vignette described a woman who comes in for a session in an agitated state. The psychologist has worked with her for a few weeks and she was not overtly suicidal or homicidal. On this visit, the psychologist decided to refer her to an inpatient due to her becoming unreliable and taking 17mg of Xanax in 30 hours instead of 2.5mg prior to her appointment.The decision making process for this vignette is very important because of the dilemma involved. The ethical decisions-making process I am going to engage in will be the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologist and the decision- making process that accompanies it.
In one of Law & Order’s “ripped from the headlines” episodes titled “House Counsel,” a juror in a mob trial is found dead. Law enforcement investigates and learns that the mobster tampered with the juror in order to avoid a conviction and then killed him to keep him quiet. The lawyer defending the mobster is a good friend of Assistant District Attorney Jack McCoy. Later in the investigation, McCoy discovers that his friend may have played a role in the jury tampering. When he suspects his friend is involved, McCoy sees an opportunity to get the mobster and prosecutes the attorney for the murder to leverage information about the mobster. In the end, the lawyer is convicted and the attorney-client privilege between the lawyer and the mobster is dissolved.
The defense succeeded at instilling reasonable doubt in the jurors’ minds. A major difference between the defense and prosecution, as stated by Dershowitz, was that the defense relied on factual evidence and scientific experts while the prosecution utilized witnesses that casted a shadow of doubt upon the whole jury (Dershowitz 97). Dershowitz claimed the prosecution knew they had falsities in their case, but kept them in order to win the case (Dershowitz 96). In all, though many people viewed Simpson as a guilty man, the allegations of police perjury and investigative errors allowed the defense to exploit and capitalize on the faults carried out by the prosecution and ultimately implant reasonable doubts in the minds of the jurors.
The O.J. Simpson trial, as it became known, opened on January 24, 1995 and concluded October 3 the same year. Over the span of the trial, the prosecution team presented 72 witnesses including friends and family of Nicole, friends of O.J., and a 9-1-1 dispatcher. Given the trial’s notable and well-known defendant, those involved in the trial gained lifetime fame. To this day I can still recall the names Judge Lance Ito, Marcia Clark (Deputy District Attorney), and Simpson’s defense counsel, “The Dream Team,” which consisted of a number of high-profile attorneys, most notably Robert Shapiro and Johnnie Cochran. I chose this case because it left a lasting impression in my memory, as well as a lasting impression in our nation’s memory. There have been many high-profile cases over the years, but this case was not predicted to end the way it di...
The stages of trial in the criminal justice system are not always as it is depicted in movies or television shows. According to the entertainment industry, there are two sides: good versus evil, and the story usually ends with an epic, jaw-dropping conclusion that finds the defendant guilty as in A Few Good Men. While that may be the case during some trials, the true beauty lies within the strategy of the prosecution and the defense. In fact, there is a distinct art that occurs at trial that takes a tremendous amount of preparation and knowledge to gain the upper hand. It is almost like a game of chess; each move most be well calculated and thought out because it can determine the outcome of the entire case. It is a mental battle between opposing counsels, where the one with the ability to think ahead often wins.
The Duke case concerns claims by a 28-year-old student at North Carolina Central University who accused three players on Duke's lacrosse team of raping her during a party where she had been hired to work as a stripper. The case has prompted national outrage and discussion about racism and the rowdy behavior of privileged students at a prestigious university. The accuser is black and the three accused students are white. All but one of the players on the Duke Lacrosse team at the time were white. Attorneys for the students have contended from the start that their clients are not guilty.
people in these 21st century society wonder, “When is Justice to be done?” For district attorneys,
Both the defense attorney and the prosecuting attorney have an opportunity to make opening statements, introduce witnesses and evidence in favor of their case, cross-examine witnesses and offer closing arguments. During the deliberation phase of the case, the jury decides whether the prosecution has met the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jury finds joe not guilty, you are free to go and not subject to further prosecution based on the same offenses.
Morality ivolves distinguishing which human behaviors are right or wrong and good or bad. Morality covers topics such as harm, rights and justice, and therefore it is mainly concerned with protecting every idividual. There has been a culture of war between liberals and conservatives all based upon human morality aspects (Haidt & Graham, 2007, p. 1). Cultural war can be termed as the division in personal opinions and thoughts between open-minded people or liberals and the conventional or traditionalists, also known as conservatives.
It is crucial in the legal system to keep our professionalism not only inside of the courtroom, but also outside of the courtroom. You do not bring the courtroom news and spread it all over the county. Keep trials private and only disclose information about it inside of the courtroom. Keep your character valid and honest outside of the courtroom. If your caught doing something your not supposed to do outside of the courtroom, this can hurt your credibility and this can hurt you in the courtroom. You 're only as worthy as your word itself- try keeping your character
The role of the defense attorney is just as important. Unlike prosecutors, the defense attorney works for the accused. It is their duty to prove that the defendant is innocent. If they cannot prove innocence, they should present mitigating factors to get a ...
With law enforcement lying, it makes it hard for citizens to depend on law enforcement. In the article, “All the Court’s a stage, and All the Lawyers Players: Leading and Misleading the Jury” Richard Zitrin and Carol Langford explain what really happens in the courts. They state, “Abraham Dennison is the most successful trial lawyers in Port City. He is smoother than silk outside of the courtroom, but in court he takes on a bumbling, aw-shucks persona.” They explain how Dennison changes the clothes he wear, and his clients to look like they are not privileged. He even dumbs down he’s speeches when talking. I might have to say it is a very smart tactic to win over the jurors. The main goal in court is to sell your client to the jury so they will feel bad for him/her. According to this article, “Dennison tells his young associates to ‘select a biased jury, it wins the case.’” By picking the right jury you can sell your clients innocence. It is sad you have to bend the truth in order to win a case. The fact one has to pick the right jury who would feel sorry for one, and act like one is uneducated in order to win a case is sad. This is bending the truth to people thinking something totally different. One should win a case by the facts, not how you hold yourself. An example of lawyers actually lying to win a case of a guilty man is the ‘affluenza’ case. In the article “Before
The Damon Investment Company manages a mutual fund composed mostly of speculative stocks. You recently saw an ad claiming that investments in the funds have been earning a rate of return of 21%. This rate seemed quite high so you called a friend who works for one of Damon’s competitors. The friend told you that the 21% return figure was determined by dividing the two-year appreciation on investments in the fund by the average investment. In other words, $100 invested in the fund two years ago would have grown to $121 ($21 ÷ $100 = 21%).