To the dutiful members of the jury, my team and I thank you for being a part of this painfully tedious process. It is up to you and your civic duty to establish the fate of this case and this man. We highly suggest that you listen to your heart, do you personally believe that this man should be exonerated? Should we allow a man, a creation of the slums and wittingly knows his way around a knife, walk free? There is no doubt that there’s a level of surmounting evidence that he is guilty, he has the track record of a criminal and it was about time that he would murder someone. Imagine being in his shoes, constantly abused by the man who should’ve loved him, growing up in a poor environment, and sent to reform school. Imagine that one day, he …show more content…
Despite this, all of the criminals I have worked with, I have never seen a more guiltier man walk into that courtroom. Do you believe that after this trial and if you decide to acquit him, that this man will not get worse? The thing about this boy is that he is tough and angry, like a puppy who has been kicked too many times. Before you know it, that puppy decides to bite the next person who tries to kick it. In the end, he will still be malicious and he could possibly murder someone else the way he murdered his father. Now the problem is that you can take the boy out of the slum, but you cannot take the slum out of the boy. Time after time, history has shown that if you let a murderer walk free, they will murder someone again. Have you ever heard about the cases of Andrew Dawson, David Cook, or George Johnson? These are all men who were released early from prison, only to murder again. Do you want a murderer to walk free on the streets among children or even among you? Or do you want him in the chair, never to hurt another soul …show more content…
First and foremost, his neighbor heard the man scream, “I’m going to kill you!” How does one argue against that? He stated his intent, and he ended up killing his father with a knife he bought the night of. That is no coincidence, it was purposeful and planned like a predator catching its prey. Although it may have been planned, which you can see from the lack of fingerprints on the switch knife, the boy might have grown nervous at the idea of committing murder, causing him to do such a sloppy cut despite his expertise. As a lawyer, I know how these criminals think and how they work. They can become nervous as it is their first time, but despite this, it is undoubtedly their last time. Additionally, all of you have seen the two witnesses brought into court, they have both seen or heard the murder transpire. Even then, we have proved that you can see through the windows of the el train, and then the old man’s deposition accompanies the old lady’s. Tell me, who are you going to trust more? The man on trial who is trying to avoid being put on the chair, and will lie or will do anything to save his life? Or the elderly who have no such reason or intent to lie to you? These two witnesses should be enough to persuade you that this man is guilty and that he murdered his
The reason I think Ethan couch should be sent to jail is, after seeing in the article it says “prosecutors charged Ethan Couch with four counts of intoxication manslaughter and two counts of intoxication assault”. That deserves a higher punishment than just 10 years and probation and some rehab. At the deadline of all of it Ethan
The jury system originated in England hundreds of years ago. The colonists brought the jury system from England to the United States. In 1733, John Zenger, a printer, printed a newspaper critical for the British Government. His attorney convinced the jury to be in favor for Zenger because his criticisms were true. After this trial, it gave ordinary citizens the freedom of speech and the power to go against the king.
Secondly the defendant wants the old man’s eye not his gold. Lastly the defendant hears stuff that normal people do not hear. Therefore the defendant should be considered insane and should be sent to a mental
This makes you “unjust” because a person is quick to judge without a single thought put into the situation. It is now to be determined, is it absolutely just about the boy being guilty or further than what is stirring beneath the surface?
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you are here because one person in this courtroom decided to take law into her own hands. The defendant, Mrs. Dominique Stephens, murdered the man that she vowed to love. This sole act by the defendant is violation of all morals and her husband’s right to live. Afterwards, she even felt guilty about this violation of justice and called the cops on herself, and she later signed a written statement stating that she is guilty of the murder of Mr. Donovan Stephens. Then the defendant later recanted this statement and said that she only killed Mr. Stephens in self defense.
Ladies and gentlemen, of the jury we are here today to find justice for the deceased, Chris Pavano who was shot and killed by the defendant, Jordan Abrams. Today I and the state of New Jersey ask you to ask yourself, if your child or your friend’s child suddenly never came home would you want their to be justice for their murderer? Would you want their murderer walking free while you or your friend mourned for the person they murdered. If you, the jury allow Jordan Abrams to walk free than that will just show other murderers that they can get away with such a heinous crime. Jordan Abrams stands accused of murder in the 1st degree, aggravated manslaughter in the 2nd degree, reckless manslaughter in the 2nd degree, possession of a weapon for an
“The boy is five feet eight inches tall. His father was six feet two inches tall. That’s a difference of six inches. It’s a very awkward thing to stab down into the chest of someone who’s half a foot taller than you are. ”-(Juror two, 54)
When asked why he voted not guilty, juror eight stated “Look, this boy has been kicked around all his life. You know---living in a slum, his mother dead since he was nine. He spent a year in and a half in an orphanage while his father served a jail term for forgery. That’s not a very good head start. He’s had a pretty terrible sixteen years.
What if juror 8 did not have the courage to freely state his opinion? The innocent boy would be dead for doing absolutely nothing.
The jury’s final decision of not guilty in the case of murder in the first degree in Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose was just and a good reflection of our justice system. In act 2 page 28 Juror 8 questions if the old man that has had 2 strokes and said that heard the murder take place and the kid running down the stairs just a few seconds after he heard the body drop, could get to the door on time to see the kid running down the stairs. He argues against the validity of the old man’s testimony when he says, “His bed was at the window. It's (looking closer) twelve feet from his bed to the bedroom door. The length of the hall is forty-three feet, six inches.
“A person is innocent until proved guilty in a court of law” In the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, an 18-year-old is on trial for the murder of his father. After many pieces of evidence, the three that are in doubt are the old man hearing “I’m going to kill you!” as well as the weapon of choice and how it was replicated, and finally the woman’s testimony. In my opinion, the boy could have been proven guilty, based on these the boy is not guilty.
You know, born in a slum. Mother dead since he was nine. He lived for a year and a half in an orphanage when his father was serving a jail term for forgery. That's not a very happy beginning. He's a wild, angry kid, and that's all he's ever been.
Another piece of evidence is a woman who swears to have seen the young man stabbed the father through the last two windows of the train. The evidence says that she was asleep and when she woke up and turned to the window through the last two windows of the train, she was able to see how the young man stabbed his father. The only problem with this argument is that the woman wore bifocal glasses and nobody usually sleeps with glasses so it would be very difficult that without their lenses of such magnitude could see what actually
If he would have sided with everybody then the accused would have been declared guilty and faced te maximum penalty by law. But by him questioning the evidence that was displayed it made him the best choice for the emergent leader. The faulty evidence wasnt enough to take him to the death penalty. Juror #3 had the role of a egotistical self absorbed
This blurs the line between right and wrong for him, creating further conflict. Ultimately, it is up to the jury to be both empathic and logical in deciding their verdict. Justice should, in the end, be tempered with