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: Texas v Johnson, 1989
I, Israel Tefera a jury number one in the case state of Texas v. James Broadnax, herby give the final verdict on the aforementioned case before the jury. After deliberating on the case, we the jury have given to this court our opinion on the case. If I may, before reading the verdict go through my thought process, I would appreciate it your honor. Throughout, we have heard from the victims’ family. I would like to now offer in my behalf and on the behalf of my fellow jurors in the case our utmost sympathies for the respective families of the two victims on the loss of Mr. Stephan Swan and Mr. Mathew Butler and commend them for their bravery throughout this ordeal, which I could only imagine is a hard one. I urge all the victims’ families …show more content…
James Broadmax have reached a decision on the two counts that the defendant is charged on. The jury found that the defendant by the name of Mr. James Broadmax is guilty of murdering both the victims named Mr. Stephen Swan and Mr. Matthew Butler. The jury in trying to let the defendant go considered if there were any circumstances that would provide say as a self-defense claim to justify this horrific crime of murder of two people named Mr. Stephan Swan and Mr. Mathew Butler. Throughout the guilt/innocent phase, the jury believes not to have heard convincing evidence the victims were a threat to the defendant nor a sign the defendant was in fear for his life before he took the victims’ lives. The defense has brought up his rough past without relating that time period with the situation we are in at the moment. The defendant does not seem to have prior outburst of any kind nor has he committed a crime that the jury was given throughout the guilt / innocence …show more content…
This did make it a plain field and did not give one side an advantage over the other, which in the opinion of the jury is a good thing. To close your honor, the jury found the defendant guilty of both counts. Your honor, we the jury are here today to give our decision on the punishment in the case before the court titled the state of Texas v. James Broadnax. Your honor, as you and everyone in the court room here today recalls, the defendant was charged of murdering two people in their mid-to-late twenties. For the record purposes sir, let the record show the two victims go by the names of Mr. Stephen Swan and Mr. Matthew Butler. Let the record also further indicate the defendant goes by the name of Mr. James Broadmax. As we the jury were deliberating what would be the best punishment for the crime the defendant, we examined his record which the jury did not find anything to judge him by in a negative light. We have also heard testimony he has been involved in a conflict with a former inmate. We further learned it has not always been easy to make the defendant to comply with orders from the officials in the
In a Georgia Court, Timothy Foster was convicted of capital murder and penalized to death. During his trial, the State Court use peremptory challenges to strike all four black prospective jurors qualified to serve on the Jury. However, Foster argued that the use of these strikes was racially motivated, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S.79. That led his claim to be rejected by the trial court, and the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. The state courts rejected relief, and the Foster’s Batson claim had been adjudicated on direct appeal. Finally, his Batson claim had been failed by the court because it failed to show “any change in the facts sufficient to overcome”.
Gentlemen of the jury, I would like to point out to you three pieces of
In December, 2011, two years after the unpleasant homicide of Wayne Boyce, the evidence collected for this particular crime suggested Prima Facie existing in the allegations made. The case then went to trial in the NSW Supreme Court of Australia. Where A 19 year old teenager referred by the initials of his name AH as he was a juvenile, pleaded guilty towards the manslaughter of Mr Wayne Boyce, 23 years of age.
Does the first amendment overrule the Texas law that forbids the desecration of a venerated object under these circumstances?
Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, thank you for your attention today. [Slide #2] I would like to assert that separation is not the end of a relationship. Divorce is not the end of a relationship. Even an arrest is not the end of a relationship. Only death is the end of a relationship. In the case of defendant Donna Osborn, her insistence that ‘“one way or another I’ll be free,”’ as told in the testimony of her friend Jack Mathews and repeated in many others’, indicates that despite the lack of planning, the defendant had the full intent to kill her husband, Clinton Osborn.
(B) "Texas v. Johnson Certiorari To The Court Of Criminal Appeals Of Texas." Blacula. (1989): 20pp. Online. Internet. 16 Nov. 1999.
Juror #3 is very biased against the 19-year-old boy that is being tried, and this affects all of his thoughts and actions regarding the case. He has this bias because his own son hit him in the jaw and ran away from home at the age of 15: “I’ve got a kid…when he was fifteen he hit me in the face…I haven’t seen him in three years. Rotten kid! I hate tough kids! You work your heart out [but it’s no use] (21).”According to this quote from the text, this juror condemns all teenagers and feels resentment towards them. He especially feels strongly about the boy being tried, because the boy grew up in the slums, and this juror is also biased against these people who grew up there. It is because of these feelings that he is strongly cemented in his vote of guilty.
At trial, your life is in the palms of strangers who decide your fate to walk free or be sentenced and charged with a crime. Juries and judges are the main components of trials and differ at both the state and federal level. A respectable citizen selected for jury duty can determine whether the evidence presented was doubtfully valid enough to convict someone without full knowledge of the criminal justice system or the elements of a trial. In this paper, juries and their powers will be analyzed, relevant cases pertaining to jury nullification will be expanded and evaluated, the media’s part on juries discretion, and finally the instructions judges give or may not include for juries in the court.
For instance, the defense has denied to present you with the crucial evidence that would prove her innocence: an alibi. Justine was totally unaccounted for on the night of William’s murder, giving her ample time to commit the atrocity of causing his death. The defense has never presented you with anything that could account for her presence at some other location than the crime scene.
from the victim and the scene of the crime be tested and his appeals were denied ("A.B. Butler").
Thank you for your consideration, gentlemen of the jury, on this exceedingly significant matter. Gentlemen, why should you, with the responsibility of this man’s fate lying in your hands, imprison and execute him when the law itself from the “knowledge of understanding,” the exact law that you have vowed upon, states that it is a hazardous thing to do? Why should you convict a human being upon misleading evidence which the law itself states is a precarious deed to act upon? Gentlemen of the jury, please reflect upon this, “How do people come up with a date and time to take life from another man?” (Gaines 157). In particular, for a crime that is evident to every individual in this courtroom that the defendant did not commit. How could an individual
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, first I would like to start by thanking you for your service. We are gathered here today to discuss the murder of Lennie Small committed by George Milton. Over the past two weeks, the evidence I have gathered suggests that Mr. Milton murdered Mr. Small out of mercy. Although both sides share conflicting evidence, I am here to prove to you that the prosecutor’s reasons for the acts committed by Mr. Milton are not justified.
Keen affirms the four defendants are guilty. He criticizes Chief Justice Truepenny’s decision to formally encourage the executive to provide clemency. Keen asserts that it was not the judge’s role to direct the executive what to do, but to offer their opinion as private citizens. Our roles, as judge, is to apply the statute, which very undoubtedly applies on its own terms to this case and not whether these men’s actions were “right” or “good,” “wicked” or “good, ”or whether the statute is good or bad policy. A judge should not apply the concepts of morality, but the law of the land. Keen argues that it is wrong to assert that defendants were acting in self-defense since Whetmore had not threatened their lives. He insists upon “a separation between law and morality, holding that "the law" required a finding of guilty even though his own morality would lead to a different result” (D’Amato, 2010). He adds, “a hard decision is never a popular decision.” A hard decision in this case is probably good because it forces the legislature to reconsider the statute. He states it is for the people to remind the Legislature of his mistake and not for the judiciary (Jitani,
The life of an 18-year-old Latino male hangs in the balance of 12 male jurors. The jury has to decide if the young Latino killed his father by stabbing him to death. The young man will receive the death sentence if the jurors find him guilty. The jurors go back to their private room to further discuss the case. Juror #8 is the only person that had reasonable doubt and believed that the young man might not guilty. They must come to a unanimous decision. The jurors discuss their points of view and Juror #8 questions the two witnesses that supposedly heard and seen the young man killing his father. After heated deliberation, the vote is unanimous and the young Latino man is declared not guilty.
She explained that his involvement in the crime was not excessive and that it was his brother who was the leader. She went on to describe his eight previous arrests for crimes like robbery and cocaine possession. Given his long history she said she was not surprised to see him involved in this kind of case. Because of his other charges I thought the prosecutor was going to suggest the higher end of the sentencing guidelines. However, as she continued I realized I was incorrect. Instead of focusing on his previous crimes she talked about how he needed rehabilitation. She emphasized recovery from his current lifestyle more than sending him to prison again. She brought up his involvement in his church and his successful marriage and questioned why he would throw all of that away. She also suggested that he turn to his church and his wife for support and to aid him in his battle with addiction. Throughout the case, the prosecutor was compassionate and seemed more like a disappointed parent to the defendant rather than angry. The one time the prosecutor did act somewhat harsh was towards the middle of her statement. She brought up the fact that the defendant had previous medical conditions such as a stab and shot wounds. She suggested that the defense had asked for these injuries to be taken into account when the sentence was decided on. She was adamant that the court should not take