sample
Haven't found the Essay You Want?
For Only $12.90/page

Jury Essay Topics & Paper Examples

12 Angry Men: Jury’s Conflict Involved on Verdict

Any jury trial is bound to have some sort of conflict involved when coming to a verdict. The portrayal of a murder case in the movie, 12 Angry Men, involves many different examples of conflict, as well as the approaches to conflict used by different characters. Almost every conversation in the film involves conflict, since the characters are all debating whether or not the boy being tried for murder is guilty or not, but there are a few scenes in which different types of conflict and different approaches to conflict seem to stand out. The room in which the men are sitting and debating the case has a table with each of the men sitting around it. Jury member number…

Leadership Within the 12 Angry Men

Throughout the film, there is seemingly more than one “leader” throughout the jury as according to Nick’s definition of a leader being that there were multiple influences and instances that persuaded the decisions of others. Initially the situation is composed of a biased and opinionated jury that is almost unanimously convinced the defendant is guilty. Throughout the scene, there is a slow but sure change of mind throughout the jury as the protagonist, Juror #8, successfully persuades the other jurors who initially voted the boy guilty of murder to further investigate and examine the fact which eventually leads to the confirmation and agreement of reasonable doubt among the jury. Juror 8’s effective followership was best represented by his consistent approach…

12 Angry Jurors 3/10 Different

In a crowded jury room, opinions collide as discussions about the innocence of a young boy are decided. The dark and foreboding storm clouds that hang over the heads of the jurors are beginning to lift as time progresses and new facts are presented. The two men that cannot put their personal emotions aside are juror 3 and juror 10. These men are motivated by their emotions rather than the evidence. Juror 3 is a strong, forceful man who refuses to alter his vote. Being very opinionated, he looks at the evidence “you sat right there in court and heard the same things, I did” (14) and doesn’t think beyond the facts. Still haunted by his own son, he verbally…

Courtroom Group

In the following essay will talk about the participants in a courtroom. How do they work on a daily basis and what changes would I recommend. Also what is the role of the prosecutor? How does a prosecutor determine which cases to pursue? Also what are some solutions to backlog of cases? According to Schmallager (2011), criminal trial participants are dividing in two categories that are professionals and outsiders. The professional are the people who work in the courtroom. They are well trained to conduct the business of the court; for example; prosecuting attorneys, judges, defense attorneys and others who work in the courtroom falls into this category. They are also known as courtroom work group. The outsiders are those…

Jury and Conditional Job Offer

Do you believe American Airlines has the right to rescind a conditional job offer? Why? I do believe American Airline should be entitled to rescind a conditional job offer but not for the reason at hand, according to the courts, American Airlines did not approach the situation correctly. However, employers do have the right to rescind job offers. Is the fact that they didn’t follow their standard hiring process a problem here? Explain. According to the second court, this was indeed the problem. The court stated American Airline should have made the conditional offer only after all non-medical factors had been evaluated, which was their normal” process. The deviation made the decision to rescind the offer as questionable. Do you…

Competence and compellability of witnesses

* A person to give evidence in court has to be legally competent, subject to the rules of admissibility. * A witness is compelled to give evidence, even if it’s against his will. * Failure to do so will result in contempt of court. However it is also contempt of court for a witness to refuse without lawful authority to answer questions put to him. * The modern test for the competence of witnesses varies, depending what type of case it is (civil or criminal). * And also the status of the witness (child, adult, accused, accused spouse, person of defective intellect). * Contempt of court meaning criminal offence. * The general rule is that a witness is competent if…

Jury and Angriest Juror

Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose explored the theme ‘Power of persuasion’ through jurors’ # Three, Eight, and Nine. The play is inspired by Reginald Rose’s own experience of jury duty on a manslaughter case in New York City. Reginald Rose was born in New York City on December 10, 1920 and he worked at a series of odd jobs, including a receiving clerk, window cleaner, and camp counselor He served in the U.S. Army in World War II, completing his tour of duty first lieutenant, he had been reluctant to serve on a jury, he wrote “the moment I walked into the court room…and found myself facing a strange man whose fate was suddenly more or less in my…

Jury System

Even though most people believe that the jury system is a necessity to having a fair trial, I believe the exact opposite. I believe that the jury is made up of 12 people that have no clue what they are even doing there. Ben Shapiro, a writer from The Patriot Post once wrote,” The problem with juries is that they are generally composed of the 12 people stupid enough to get out of jury duty.” I say that if we want to keep the jury system around, we have to make improvement to it. We need to educate the American citizen about what they do at jury duty, instead of them just getting there and then having no idea what…

Legal Rights

Criminals have legal rights during trial procedures. Without these rights there would be so much confusion and controversy in the court system today. There are four of them that I will give a brief summarization of and explain to you the consequences that could possibly happen if these legal rights were no longer upheld in the court system today. They are; the right to confront witnesses, the right to an impartial jury, the right to counsel at trial, and last but not least the right to be competent trial. The right to confront witnesses is legal right. The sixth amendment gives the defendant the right to be confronted by the witnesses against them (Larry J. Siegel, 2012, 2010). This basically…

Jury Trail Analysis

A Jury Trail is a trial that proceeds like any other trial however the judges do not determine guilt or innocence in the case. A group of people that have been selected by both the defense and the prosecution sides in the case. These people that have been selected have sworn to inquire into matters of fact and reach a verdict on the basis of the evidence that during the case has been presented to them(“Thefreedictionary”, 2013). The trial by jury has become the central role in the criminal justice system. The Jury Trail has been known as an impartial was for a person to get a fair trial. This is based on that the person being tried having people…

Case Digests And Political Law

Facts: Petitioner was charged with violation of Section 2 (4) of the revised securities act. Respondent filed to cancel the passport of the petitioner and to issue a hold departure order. The RTC ordered the DFA to cancel petitioner’s passport, based on the finding that the petitioner has not been arraigned and there was evidence to show that the accused has left the country with out the knowledge and the permission of the court. Issue: Whether or Not the right to travel may be impaired by order of the court. Held: The bail bond posted by petitioner has been cancelled and warrant of arrest has been issued by reason that he failed to appear at his arraignments. There is a…

Criminal Investigation Written Assignment

1.Why must a criminal investigator know the rules of evidence? It is the criminal investigators responsibility to collect and preserve evidence that will later be used in court to aid in a prosecution. It is essential that the criminal investigator knows the rules of evidence because lack of such knowledge could result in inadmissibility of the evidence to be used against the defendant in court. 2.What is the hearsay rule and why does it exist? Hearsay evidence is where a testifying witness with no experience or factual knowledge of the event repeats information heard outside of court from someone else. It’s an overheard version of truth used to testify by a second hand witness. Since the first hand witness isn’t…

Court Report

1.Which court did you attend and what was the date of your attendance? (e.g. Magistrates Court in Brisbane; Supreme Court in Sydney etc) 2.What kind of hearing did you attend?(e.g. sentence, summary trial, committal hearing, jury trial, mention, call-over etc.) I attended an appeal against sentence. This is when the accused feels the sentence they were given is too severe, in which case a request is put forth to a higher court for the review and rehearing of evidence to change the decision of a lower court. The Crown is also able to file for an appeal if they believe the sentence given is inadequate of the crime committed. This process can only be done once a guilty plea or…

12 Angry Men Movie Analysis

Introduction: This movie analysis will focus on the movie 12 Angry Men. There will be comparisons between the movie and the different negotiation tactics used in the movie and even in class. There were lessons learned from this movie and it gave new ways of thinking. This movie does a great job of using negotiation to win over a case when you are the odd man out. Summary: This movie focuses on a jury deliberating a first-degree murder charge on an eighteen year old boy. The boy is accused of stabbing his father to death. If found guilty of the charges, the eighteen year old boy will face the death sentence. There are many reasons as to why the boy…

NBA Case Study

1- NBA Referee Tim Donaghy is involved in betting on games he officiated. He is involved in setting the score of the NBA 2002 final by extending the games series to seven games. This betting scandal affected the NBA in many ways; the customers and fans of this sport felt betrayed by the referee and the NBA management. The image of the NBA went down in its fans eyes and watchers lost their trust in the game. Fans, from now on will interfere in every questionable decision from the referee maybe has he personal profit for its outcome. NBA had a trustworthy image but unfortunately lost it. First of all NBA management should sue the referee involved and investigate with…

Presumption of Innocence

In a court of law everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a judge and/or a jury consisting of their peers. This is the basis of the presumption of innocence clause. There are many cases that we can look at in order to provide a detailed explaination to this clause. The one the we will review in this paper is the Casey Anthony case. This is a perfect case to review for this cause. The Presumption of Innocence clause involves the fifth and fourteenth ammendments which will be further explained. When we are dealing with people or are thought to be guilty of any crime we need to remember this clause and give them the benefit of the doubt…

The Process of the Criminal Justice Process

The topic that I chose to describe is the criminal justice process. The criminal justice process is described as a process that involves a series of steps beginning with the investigation of the crime and the arrest of the suspect. The next step following the investigation is the pretrial activities, which include the first appearance, a preliminary hearing, information or indictment, and arraignment. Following the pretrial activities, is adjudication, this is where there is a trial by jury. A trial is heard and settled by this judicial procedure. Following adjudication the sentence is given. Lastly, the corrections stage begins. The first step, investigation and arrest, is very important. Since there is already a crime that has been commented, getting as…

Jury Trial

On June 19, 1994 O.J Simpson the football hall of famer was arrested in California for the murders of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. Simpson was arraigned in court two day later he pleaded not guilty to the charges and was held in the Los Angeles County jail. Jury selection began in October and the jury was sworn in on November 2, 1994. Mr. Simpson did have a jury of his peers, because the jury was twelve jurors some African American and white. The jurors were picked through the voir dire process. With each juror understanding that they could not have any personal bias pertaining to the case. A series of question were asked to the jurors…

Stages of Criminal Trial

There are eight stages in a Criminal Trial, the trial initiation, jury selection, openings statements, presentation of evidence, closing arguments, judge’s charge to the jury, jury deliberations and the verdict. In this essay I will focus on the jury selection stage. A criminal petit jury is very important in a trial. The jury is responsible for deciding whether a defendant committed the crime as charged. In a criminal trial there are usually 12 members in a jury. The jury selection is conducted by both the prosecution and the defense attorneys. An examination process called voir dire is performed on each potential juror, to ensure any unbiased or preconceived notions of guilt or innocence doesn’t exist. Any person desiring or summoned…

12 Angry Men

In 12 angry men there are many themes that are present one of the major themes that is found was present is, one determined and skilled individual can wield a lot of influence. Juror number eight is a “quiet, thoughtful, gentle man” he seesall points of the argument and wants to find the truth. On the other hand juror number three is “a very strong, very forceful, extremely opinionated man” his opinion is all that matters and if other people don’t agree with it they are automatically wrong. All of the characters in this story help develop the theme but in my opinion jurors number three and eight play a very large role in it. Juror three is a very…

Jury Trial Analysis

Jury trial refers to a legal proceeding, whereby a panel of adjudicators makes decisions that are put into practice by the judges. A jury decides upon dubious issues of fact that can either be in a criminal or civil trial. It is a constitutional right for those charged with criminal and civil offenses to face trial by jury. However, in civil trials the defender and the offender can have a consensus of having a bench trial before a judge. Therefore, it is evidenced that jury trial takes place only in those situations where one side in a civil case, or the accused in a criminal case, have a belief that it is in their best interest. It also has an…

Forensic Psychology and Jury Selection

Modern criminal trial practice demands that the law as an academic discipline cannot exist in a vacuum; quite the contrary, the law must be viewed as an overriding set of principles which must be viewed in conjunction with other academic disciplines (Carson & Bull, 2003). This is particularly true in the case of jury selection in criminal trials where the law has been combined with forensic psychology. This essay will discuss the policy underlying the incorporation of forensic psychology into formal criminal proceedings, the precise role of the forensic psychologist in jury selection, and what types of juror risk factors are of particular interests to prosecutors and defense attorneys. Forensic Psychology and the Law If the purpose of the legal…

12 Angry Men Questions

1. Do you think that the jury in this movie came to the right decision? Why/why not? I think that the jury in this movie came to the wrong decision, because I feel that all throughout the deliberation the factual evidence did not have any reasonable doubt lingering above it, which was the complete opposite of the opinion of juror 8, and gradually everyone else. While there was factual evidence presented, juror 8 persuaded all the rest of the jurors at the end to disregard the forensics, and to deduce their own theories, by blatantly stating “what if” questions persuading all jurors to a unanimous decision. 2. Did your opinion of the case change as the movie progressed, or did…

Pros and Cons of Trial by Jury

A jury trial (or trial by jury) is a legal proceeding in which a jury either makes a decision or makes findings of fact which are then applied by a judge. It is distinguished from a bench trial, in which a judge or panel of judges make all decisions. Jury trials are used in a significant share of serious criminal cases in almost all common law legal systems,[1] and juries or lay judges have been incorporated into the legal systems of many civil law countries for criminal cases. Only the United States and Canada make routine use of jury trials in a wide variety of non-criminal cases. Other common law legal jurisdictions use jury trials only in a very select…

Judicial discretion

“With regards to evidence obtained by entrapment and undercover operations, critically discuss the relationship between judicial discretion and the power to stay proceedings as an abuse of power” This essay will critically examine entrapment in the light of judicial discretion and the courts power to stay proceedings. It shall also critically discuss the relationship between the two. The increasing use of entrapment within criminal law may be viewed as part of a global trend in investigations ranging from coercion to deception. Entrapment in itself is not a legal term of art, although in relation to its dictionary meaning it is merely to “catch”, “ensnare” “entangle” and to “trap”. However, in its widest occurrence with the law it is often described…

Adult Justice System vs. Juvenile Justice System

There are many similarities and differences between the adult and juvenile justice systems. Although juvenile crimes have increased in violence and intensity in the last decade, there is still enough difference between the two legal proceedings, and the behaviors themselves, to keep the systems separated. There is room for changes in each structure. However, we cannot treat/punish juvenile offenders the way we do adult offenders, and vice versa. This much we know. So we have to find a way to merge between the two. And, let’s face it; our juveniles are more important to us in the justice system. They are the group at they impressionable age that can be changed; altered into a life separated from crime, where as…

Jury Nullification Paper

In this paper I am going to explain whether ethnicity influences courtroom proceedings and judicial practices, and give some examples of ethnicity-based jury nullification, a sanctioned doctrine of trial proceedings wherein members of a jury disregard either the evidence presented of the instructions of the judge in order to reach a verdict based upon their own consciences. It espouses the concept that jurors should be the judges of both law and fact. Ethnicity in court is an important factor depending were your venue of court is located, and the jurors selected to the court. If in a court room there are jurors that are all white and are jurors for a case involving a white man that killed a African…

Jury In “Twelve Angry Men”

i. Why is it so difficult for the jury in Twelve Angry Men to reach its final verdict? Rose shows that in Twelve Angry Men it is difficult to reach a verdict when jurors essentially have pre conceived ideas and bring personal prejudice in a case, along with Jurors that lack interest. These factors undoubtedly cause conflict and difficulty in the Jury system, which highlights a potential weakness in the democratic process. The trouble also arises from the fact that Juror 8 is one of the few Jurors to initially deliberate honestly and thoughtfully and seeks to obtain justice. Rose suggests that there needs to be active participation In ensuring the jury system operates as intended, and when there is,…

Case Brief Assignment: State v. Kelbel

Facts: Kyle John Kelbel was convicted of first-degree murder, past pattern of child abuse, in violation of Minnesota state statute section 609.185(5) and second-degree murder, in violation of Minnesota statute 609.19, subdivision 2(1). He was sentenced to life in prison for the death of Kailyn Marie Montgomery. Kelbel appealed, and argued that the district court failed to instruct the jury that it must find that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the acts that constituted the past pattern of child abuse and he also argued that the evidence against him was insufficient to prove past pattern of child abuse against Kailyn. Kelbel testified that the head injury of Kailyn was inflicted by a cup thrown at her…

What is judicial precedent

Find out how a proposal for a new law becomes a bill Understand what a ‘green paper’ and a ‘white paper’ are Learn the differences between a public bill and a private bill Find out about the different stages that the bill has to pass through, such as first, second and third reading Find how a bill is amended as it passes through the Commons and the Lords Learn about Royal Assent – when a bill becomes an Act of Parliament Describe the creation of statute. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of statute Compare judge made law with statute – judge made law (common law) Form an opinion Discuss the impact of ECJ, Custom Textbook and other s law What…