Case Brief

The 8th juror says, “I started to feel that the defence counsel wasn’t doing his job. He let too many things go. Little things.” (13).

However, it isn't just the jurors' own personal prejudice that affects the way they vote. The prosecution of the boy led the jurors to believe that he was a guilty beyond all doubt. Also, the boy's representation was uninterested and uncaring. ‘I kept putting myself in the boy's place. I would have asked for another lawyer, I think. I mean, if I was on trial for my life I'd want my lawyer to tear the prosecution witnesses to shreds, or at least to try.' [Juror 8, page 14]

The jurors had come to value a case based on facts, not prejudice or stereotypes. Those who upheld this value (Juror 8 and the Juror 4) were respected and became leaders that were looked to for guidance. The jurors that maintained arguments based on stereotypes alienated themselves from the others.

A 27year old African American man pled guilty and was convicted on five counts of common law burglary. He was sentenced to death in accordance with Alabama state law. The prosecution presented the eyewitness accounts of the events and the petitioner did not testify. The defendant did not testify on his behalf, nor did counsel present his case. The judge accepted the guilty plea without any confirmation from the defendant concerning his voluntariness of his guilty plea or its consequences.

This civil court case takes place in a West Virginia school system located in Taylor County, when a general education high school history teacher failed to follow an IEP for Douglas Devart. During the case Devart and his parents Robert and Virginia ended up using aliases by the names of John Doe, Jane Doe and son D.D. Doe as a deterrent from the public so the family would not endure any additional embarrassment, slander, and/or liable regarding the son’s handicap. The defendants of this case were

Some could argue that this case illustrates the failure of the jury system. Despite all the evidence pointing to the guilt of the defendant,

Pretrial publicity has been address by the U.S. Supreme Court since the 1960s. In the revolutionary case of Irwin v. Dowd, the defendant, Leslie Irvin, was convicted of committing six murders in a rural area of Indiana. The crimes generated extensive media coverage, in both television and print. Irvin argued that the pretrial publicity prevented him from receiving a fair trial by an impartial jury. The Court agreed, noting that eight of the twelve jurors who heard the case had decided that Irvin was guilty before the trial began. Despite these admissions, the trial judge had accepted as conclusive the jurors' statements that they would be able to render an impartial verdict. The Court held that the substantial publicity surrounding the case made the trial judge's determination of juror impartiality erroneous (Bruschke & Loges, 2004). This court case set out a basic rule that when pretrial publicity has been substantial, a trial court should not necessarily accept a juror's assertion of impartiality. In these cases a presumption is raised that the jurors are biased. Because of the bias of the jury members, the defendant is not given a trial of an impartial jury, a Sixth Amendment right. Media coverage should still be allowed to report information regarding the trial, but only after it has begun. In this way, jury members will not be exposed to pretrial publicity that biases their opinion of the defendant.

Plaintiff, Elian Gonzalez, a six year old minor, through his “next of friend”, Lazaro Gonzalez, filed an asylum application with the INS (Immigration & Naturalization Service), which was denied. The plaintiff’s then filed a claim in the federal district court which stated the Plaintiff’s due process rights were violated and the INS had overstepped

Jacquelyn Young hired the law firm of Becker & Poliakoff to represent her in her federal employment discrimination lawsuit against her employer. The firm associate that filed the action made a mistake by attaching the wrong U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) right-to-sue letter. The court dismissed the claims. The law firm did not try to re-file using the correct attachment, or try to dismiss the motion. Thirteen months later, the law firm informed Young that the claims had been dismissed, and that the firm was withdrawing from representing her further with the case.

The word “fraud” was magnified in the business world around the end of 2001 and the beginning of 2002. No one had seen anything like it. Enron, one of the country’s largest energy companies, went bankrupt and took down with it Arthur Andersen, one of the five largest audit and accounting firms in the world. Enron was followed by other accounting scandals such as WorldCom, Tyco, Freddie Mac, and HealthSouth, yet Enron will always be remembered as one of the worst corporate accounting scandals of all time. Enron’s collapse was brought upon by the greed of its corporate hierarchy and how it preyed upon its faithful stockholders and employees who invested so much of their time and money into the company. Enron seemed to portray that the goal of corporate America was to drive up stock prices and get to the peak of the financial mountain by any means necessary. The “Conspiracy of Fools” is a tale of power, crony capitalism, and company greed that lead Enron down the dark road of corporate America.

Between this time and November 3rd 1994 the jury of 12 was selected out of a venire of 304 perspective jurors. All 304 perspective juror’s had a seventy five page questionnaire to complete to determine eligibility for the trial. Both the prosecuting and defending teams set out to present their case. The trial lasted 134 days in 1995 and is renowned for the media coverage from inside

The U.S. jury system is marked by its relatively strong credibility and positive public opinion. Two clear strengths of the jury system stem from this fact; the first being that juries generally reach reasonable verdicts on guilt or damages (in civil cases) and the second being that judges generally agree with the verdicts/sentencing recommendations reached by juries. However, the source of jury strength can also be a source of weakness. There is an explored by unexplained gap between judge opinion and jury opinion in some cases that leaves some scholars baffled (i.e. cases where judges and juries come to very different conclusions about a case). In addition to this, a sharp decline in juries resolving cases at both the federal and state levels

The background of this case, Skilling V.S U.S is all based around the company called Enron. Enron Corporation was an American energy based company in Houston, Texas and it was said to be one of the biggest scandals in history, but it was once known as the largest companies, one of the seventh largest corporation to be exact in history. The company was founded in 1985 by Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling. Enron had over 20,000 people working there, when Enron became bankrupt, people lost their jobs and about 2,000,000 dollars in employment retirement funds were lost.

Several of the jurors are shown to have serious personal biases that interfere with their ability to objectively look at the evidence of the case. The most prominent example is Juror no. 10, a garage owner, who from the very beginning is shown to be bigoted towards people from the slums. One of his first lines, in response to Juror

The article that was researched is discussing how Jeffrey Skilling (the former CEO of Enron) was sentenced to 24 years for his role in the $60 billion Enron fraud. During the proceedings, he claimed that he is innocent and wanted a chance to further clear him name. Moreover, the remaining $60 million of his personal assets was to cover legal expenses and go into a trust for the employees harmed by the collapse of the firm. This was in response to the arrogance that he had shown during Congressional hearings in 2001 (when he denied any wrongdoing and failed to cooperate). After the announcement, many of the employees were delighted by the sentencing. This is because Skilling was the latest in a series of high profile executives to face justice. His sentencing provides them with a sense of closure about a tragic chapter in their lives. ("Former Enron CEO," 2006)