Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Evidence at the crime scene
Crime scene evidence essay paper
What are the motives behind crime
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Evidence at the crime scene
Bang! “All rise!” the clerk shouted. All twelve of them shuffled through the door, creating a muffled sound that broke the eerie silence of the courtroom located at 1127 Tower Lane. They solemnly walked down the hallway to the jury room. Unlike previous breaks in the trial where they laughed and conversed about their families and jobs, they were silent except for the occasional cough or sneeze. All of the jurors sensed the magnitude of the situation and felt the hallway stretching in length, a never-ending path between where they heard the arguments and where they would decide the verdict. As the door closed behind the last juror, the mood within the room changed. To each and every juror the room felt foggy and closed. Up to now the closed …show more content…
As she began to formulate her first question, she ran over the outline of this case. The District Attorney produced a case of a man who is charged with having broken into an office building to steal company tax files and killed a cleaning lady who ran into him as he was rummaging through the file cabinet. The prosecution had adequately established motive and opportunity for the murder but the question of how Isaac had gotten in the building troubled all who were in the courtroom. No doors were broken into. No alarms were triggered. How could the killer have gotten in? The only direction the jury was pointed in was to a small narrow window overhanging the trash disposal entrance. That single window was the focus of the majority of the trial. Window experts were brought into testify and cross-examined and cross-examined again. Crime scene pictures of the window were shown, examined, measured, and shown again. The window seemed much too small for the defendant to get through. Both attorneys focused much of their closing arguments on the window, and there was running joke among the jurors (except for Judy) that a murderer was going to come through the jury room windows one day with all the attention windows were
Courtroom 302 is one of the busiest courtrooms in the United States and that isn’t always the case, but the processes are still the same. According to our textbook, (Neubauer, D.W. & Fradella, H.F., 2017, p. 13) “The overwhelming majority of crimes involve burglary and theft.” Which Courtroom 309 gives many cases that involved some sort of theft or robbery, like the case that mentioned earlier. It also gives a great representation of the flaws that our criminal justice system
Even before the jury sits to take an initial vote, the third man has found something to complain about. Describing “the way these lawyers can talk, and talk and talk, even when the case is as obvious as this” one was. Then, without discussing any of the facts presented in court, three immediately voiced his opinion that the boy is guilty. It is like this with juror number three quite often, jumping to conclusions without any kind of proof. When the idea that the murder weapon, a unique switchblade knife, is not the only one of its kind, three expresses “[that] it’s not possible!” Juror eight, on the other hand, is a man who takes a much more patient approach to the task of dictating which path the defendant's life takes. The actions of juror three are antagonistic to juror eight as he tries people to take time and look at the evidence. During any discussion, juror number three sided with those who shared his opinion and was put off by anyone who sided with “this golden-voiced little preacher over here,” juror eight. His superior attitude was an influence on his ability to admit when the jury’s argument was weak. Even when a fellow juror had provided a reasonable doubt for evidence to implicate the young defendant, three was the last one to let the argument go. Ironically, the play ends with a 180 turn from where it began; with juror three
Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.
We are all different. We are all at least biased on one topic. Some people just look at the surface, while others dig deeper into the facts that were given. Reginald Rose demonstrated these points beautifully in 12 Angry Men. All of the Jurors bring a special part of their personality to the jury room, which is the beauty of having a jury. All of the jurors are different in their own unique way,
Yet with the help of one aged yet wise and optimistic man he speaks his opinion, one that starts to not change however open the minds of the other eleven men on the jury. By doing this the man puts out a visual picture by verbally expressing the facts discussed during the trial, he uses props from the room and other items the he himself brought with him during the course of the trial. Once expressed the gentleman essentially demonstrate that perhaps this young man on trial May or may not be guilty. Which goes to show the lack of research, and misused information that was used in the benefit of the prosecution. For example when a certain factor was brought upon the trail; that being timing, whether or not it took the neighbor 15 seconds to run from his chair all the way to the door. By proving this right or wrong this man Juror #4 put on a demonstration, but first he made sure his notes were correct with the other 11 jurors. After it was
The courthouse was crowded, all seats were taken and many were standing in the back. It was silent, no one spoke, not even a baby cried out. There was the Judge sitting in the front of the room, the defendant, the solicitor, and the jury. I was a member of the jury that day. Everyone knew the truth, the defendant was innocent, and the evidence that was established was supportive and clear.
As time goes on he becomes more and more passionate and seems to be somehow personally involved with the case. At one point, he tells the other jurors about an argument between him and his son. Juror 3 and his son had an argument which made his son run away. When his son returned to apologize, Juror 3 hit him for leaving the first time thus leading him to run away once more. He has not seen his son in two years and this has left him somewhat bitter inside. His anger toward his supposed ungrateful son is projected toward the young man on trial. Juror 3 has no concern for the life of the defendant. He makes it clear that he would have been an executioner and would have pulled the switch on the boy himself. His personal troubles have imposed on his ability to come to a verdict.
For example, they had faith in the witnesses declarations. Some even questioned,”How can they repeal oath?’’ In addition, Juror #2 relies on his intuition to settle his decision. When asked he says,”I just think he is guilty.”(Juror #2) Juror # 5 relies on his memory to determine whether the boy is guilty or not. For instance, all he says is,”I lived in a slum.”(Juror # 5) Here juror # 5 debates in his mind whether the boy should be guilty or not. He draws connections between the boy and him by analyzing his own past times in slums. To move on, All the jurors use sense perception during the beginning to acknowledge the situation. They see and hear the witnesses declaring their statements under oath, in which allows them to trust them. Nonetheless, language is a big factor in determining the boys innocence in respect with the case. For one, it allows the jurors to communicate and extract knowledge by understanding what others say. Without a doubt language is the basis for the extraction of the truth. Juror # 8 enters the room believing that the boy is not guilty. His reasons and different perceptions of the situations allows everyone to scrutinize the situation. For instance, once he proves that the old man could not have seen the boy down the steps and in addition he could have not heard him through the train, he introduces everyone the other side of the story by saying,” We have a reasonable doubt.”(Juror # 8) This statement circulates in
... believed in the innocence of the young man and convinced the others to view the evidence and examine the true events that occurred. He struggled with the other jurors because he became the deviant one in the group, not willing to follow along with the rest. His reasoning and his need to examine things prevailed because one by one, the jurors started to see his perspective and they voted not guilty. Some jurors were not convinced, no matter how much evidence was there, especially Juror #3. His issues with his son affected his decision-making but in the end, he only examined the evidence and concluded that the young man was not guilty.
The jurors had several conflicts in disagreeing with each other and it didn't help that they would shout over one another. The very first conflict is when juror 8 voted not guilty against the 11 guilty votes. The other 11 jurors don't seem to want to hear this man out; they don't want to hear why he has voted not guilty. Some of these men, jurors 3 and 7, just want to get this case over with so they can get on with their lives. They don't think it is imperative enough to look over the evidence and put themselves in the place of the defendant. They get upset with this man and try to get him to vote guilty.
The crowded courtroom was absolutely silent as the 12 all white and all men took their seats at the jury box. Chief Justice Albert Mason, one of the presiding judges in the murder case, asked Charles I. Richards, the foreman, to rise. Mr. Richards was asked to read the verdict. “Not guilty”, replied the foreman. Even though the circumstantial and physical evidence pointed to Lizzie Borden guilty of killing her step-mother and father, the all-male jury, men of some financial means, could not fathom that a woman who is well bred and a Sunday school teacher could possibly commit such a heinous crime (Linder 7).
In viewing 12 Angry Men, we see face to face exactly what man really is capable of being. We see different views, different opinions of men such as altruism, egoism, good and evil. It is no doubt that human beings possess either one or any of these characteristics, which make them unique. It is safe to say that our actions, beliefs, and choices separate us from animals and non-livings. The 20th century English philosopher, Martin Hollis, once said, “Free will – the ability to make decisions about how to act – is what distinguishes people from non-human animals and machines 1”. He went to describe human beings as “self conscious, rational, creative. We can fall in love, write sonnets or plan for tomorrow. We are capable of faith, hope and charity, and for that matter, of envy, hated and malice. We know truth from error, right from wrong 2.” Human nature by definition is “Characteristics or qualities that make human beings different from anything else”. With this said, the topic of human nature has been around for a very long time, it is a complex subject with no right or wrong answer. An American rabbi, Samuel Umen, gave examples of contradictions of human nature in his book, Images of Man. “He is compassionate, generous, loving and forgiving, but also cruel, vengeful, selfish and vindictive 3”. Existentialism by definition is, “The belief that existence comes before essence, that is, that who you are is only determined by you yourself, and not merely an accident of birth”. A French philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, is the most famous and influential 20th - century existentialist. He summed up human nature as “existence precedes essence”. In his book, Existentialism and Human Emotions, he explained what he meant by this. “It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will be something, and he himself will have made what he will be 4”. After watching 12 Angry Men, the prominent view on human nature that is best portrayed in the movie is that people are free to be whatever they want because as Sartre said, “people create themselves every moment of everyday according to the choices they make 5”.
In this essay, I will explain how I experienced a courtroom visit and the important issues learnt from the visit. In the courtroom, the judge was presiding over the court, and because the matters were on criminal cases there were jurors. This jury received instructions from the judge about the law, as they were nonprofessional. A jury consists of twelve persons when it comes to serious felonies and six members when it is only a misdemeanor. The reason why the judge gave them the facts on the law was to help them deliberate after the case was over to establish whether the accused person was guilty or not.
At the expiration of this term, twelve of the boys were brought into court at one time, and the scene formed a striking and highly pleasing contrast with their appearance when first arraigned. The judge expressed much pleasure as well as surprise at their appearance, and remarked, that the object of law had been accomplished and expressed his cordial approval of my plan to save and reform" (Martin, 2005).
At 1:30 p.m. on a Monday afternoon, I entered the San Bernardino Justice Center in Downtown San Bernardino for my first court visit. After passing through the metal screen detectors and making my way up to courtroom number 19, I opened the courtroom doors plated “Judge Harold Wilson” and nervously checked in with the bailiff and the court clerk. The judge, judicial clerk and two attorneys were already in the room chatting. I was surprised to hear the friendliness in their tone and conversation they all were having regarding their personal lives. The attorneys from opposing sides were chatting like they were best friends. I asked the bailiff, “If this is normal?”, he said, “Yes it is! and whatever they show on TV is not reality.” Soon after our conversation, the bailiff brought in the defendant. He was well dressed, black male, probably around the age of 35. He sat down next to the defense lawyer and the chit-chatting resumed. After 20 minutes of laughter and constant bantering, the judge asked the bailiff to bring the jury inside. As the bailiff walked outside to call the jury in, the judge went to his chambers.