Ladies and Gentlemen, venerable members of the jury, Your Honour – The accused, Hugo McHale, is guilty of the wilful and premeditated murder of Peter Wilson. Through the analysis of McHale’s motive, means and opportunity, it will become clear that not only did McHale kill someone, but he had also intentionally set out to do so. Throughout the course of this arduous trial you have endured a relentless argument in defence of Hugo McHale, son of the late business magnate Henry McHale and accused murderer of former Altus Properties Chief of Staff, Peter Wilson. The defence have sculpted the seemingly perfect image of an emotionally vulnerable young man with diminished capacity, plagued by the unexpected death of his father. But what the defence …show more content…
Why, who wouldn’t be furious after finding out they lost an investment which would surely earn them millions? However, it wasn’t until McHale received an alleged anonymous tip-off that pinned Medich as his father’s “murderer”, that he grew from furious to vindictive. But it was the final straw when McHale and former co-worker Hank Gallagher found an unfamiliar type of drug in his father’s desk drawer upon cleaning out his office, allegedly prescribed to Carter Medich himself. At this point, McHale believed that his father hadn’t suffered a heart attack because of his old age, but rather a chemically-induced heart attack at the hands of Medich, referring to Medich as “he that hath killed my king” (5:2:69). The same man who had cost him millions of dollars had now also cost him his father’s life. A clear motive. Having pocketed the remaining pills the defendant found in his father’s desk drawer, McHale had his means and was determined to give his father’s “murderer” a taste of his own medicine. And what better place to do this than the intimate dinner Medich himself had planned to pay his respects to the late Henry McHale’s close family and business associates. Ladies and Gentlemen, at this point the defendant’s path had laid out itself. McHale had the means, motive and opportunity. McHale had malicious intent. McHale had the makings of a
The author collaborates with his fellow staff, the family and community of Walter to plan a case to prove his innocence. Without proper collaboration the author would not be able to prove Walter’s innocence and have Ralph Myer’s change of heart to testify truthfully. The author also shows common purpose through the relentless to free Walter of all charges. Without sticking to the common purpose of the family of Walter and Bryan’s staff, Walter would never have been exonerated. This highlights the importance of a good common purpose and without one, true change can not be achieved.
(Q1 - 4) On March 8th 2017 Student Group 5 attended the Supreme Court case Awatere v The Queen in Courtroom 7 of the Sir Samuel Way Building. Being a criminal trial, the accused, Mr. Awatere, is being tried by a 13 man jury, abiding with s6 of the Juries Act 1927 (SA) on the charge of murder. Witness examination and cross-examination was conducted before presiding Justice David Lovell and the jury, consistent with s6(2) and s6A of the Juries Act 1927 (SA). This criminal trial will determine if Mr Awatere is guilty of intending to murder or grievously harm his former partner and victim, Ms J Ohide (hereinafter ‘the victim’) by strangulation. Official legal parties in the case are the accused: Mr T Awatere, represented by a defence barrister
In real true court cases there is always evidence that can be shown and provided to the jury in order to persuade peoples opinions in finding someone guilty or not guilty. In this case, I am very influenced in believing that Skidmore if found guilty in poisoning his brother. The author, Paul Haven, has an outstanding perspective to influence the readers. In the excerpt, 'The Curse of the Poisoned Pretzel', there are several ideas that are conveying the audience to believe that Skidmore is guilty of poisoning his brother Manchester.
This is case that faces Mary Barnett. The issue in this case is that On January 23, the litigant, Mary Barnett, left Chicago to visit her life partner in San Francisco having left her six-month-old little girl, Alison, unattended in the apartment. Mary Barnett returned home a week later to find that her child had died of dehydration. She called the police and at first, to let them know that she had left her kid with a baby sitter. She later expressed that she had left the child and she didn 't mean to return, and that she knew Alison would die in a day or two. She has been accused of wrongdoing of second-degree murder; purposeful homicide without intention. In the event that she is sentenced, she could face up to eighteen years in prison. This piece of writing tries to give the verdict of the case after critically examining both prosecution and defendant side.
After reading “the Innocent Man” by Pamela Colloff’s who write a long journalism about Michael Morton, who was found guilty for murdering his wife Christine was sentenced for fifteen years in prison. Later founding that Michael was Innocent after reinvestigating his case, capturing DNA testing and finding new evidence was able to help prove his innocence. The theme of this essay a widow husband who seek to fight for his freedom in prison and staying connected with his son. Michal son Eric gave him a reason to have hope that they would one day reunite and his son would know for himself that he did murder his wife. The point of view of this essay although a man is falsely accuse for a crime he did not commit he is self-determined to fight.
One misinformed comment followed another as the press released a statement where Ferrier said he wished to be a prolific killer, better than the likes of Canada’s current worst murderers. Removing the motive that lead to such a concerning comment, erased the truth behind it. At the time Martin was in solitary confinement, stripped of his clothes and freedom, with a deteriorating mental state. The comment was purely with the intention to be freed from solitary. Withdrawing this vital information altered the way a reader would view Martin’s statement.
The nature of her crimes reflect a general fear of intimate and buried violence, suggesting a growing anxiety about being threatened from within. Her moves are calculated and planned. Murders and robberies spring from a specific social context, not from psychosis or vindictive malice (Kalikoff, 81). Murders in Victorian melodramas are often the result of elaborate plans to conceal identity, right a wrong or improve social status.
At an early age one is Sartoris, knowing far too well the difference between right and wrong, knows that something in these trial proceedings smells bad and that inevitably he will have to choose the latter in order to align his ideals to his Father’s misaligned ones. The Justice calls
The defendant had the mental capacity to understand what he was doing. The boy created a list of potential victims that included names and addresses and obtained ester to further his crime. He methodically planned to obtain an instrument suitable to strike his mother. The axe handle was procured from the garage and hidden under his mattress. An organized mind was used in each of the actions. To think through and plan a murder in such a sequential manner showed his maturity
“The one great principle of the English law is, to make business for itself…viewed by this light it becomes a coherent scheme” (621) of which lawyers are the key players. Mr. Vholes, Robert’s lawyer, “always looking at the client, as if he were making a lingering meal of him with his eyes as well as with his professional appetite,” (624) dupes Robert into believing that he needs him for his suit. This “respectable” lawyer tells Robert that because he is represented he will have a voice in the legal system, however, it means nothing for Robert’s suit. Thus, these false hopes told to Robert by his lawyer eventually results in his melancholy death.
Good morning and thank you for your time. Throughout the course of this deliberation, we must picture Miss Briony Tallis as what she was at the time of the crime: a naive and sheltered child. Haven’t you made mistakes in your life? I, personally, find it quite hard to go even a day without doing a minimum of five things wrong, and, ultimately, Miss Tallis might have made a mistake in her insistence of Mr. Robbie Turner’s guilt, but she did not commit perjury. The key factor in this is the difference between outright malicious lying and a more nebulous idea of “not knowing.” Miss Tallis, in drawing a logical and analytical conclusion based upon her surroundings, has done what we are expected to do in this class. She first saw her sister strip naked in front of a man without reason, then she read a borderline perverted note from said man to her sister.
Background: In 1843 Daniel M’Naghten attempted to kill Robert Peel, the British prime minister, but shoot his secretary instead. His defense team argued that he was insane because of his paranoid ideation, the judge found him non responsible. Fersch states “Subsequently because of outrage at the acquittal, a panel of judges responded to house of lords’ questions and set forth the test that will be known as the M’Naghten test” (fersch, 2005). In 1851, the M’Naghten rules were adopted in the federal and most of the state courts of the United States. Under the prevailing M’Naghten standard a person cannot be convicted if, at the time the criminal act was committed, that person was laboring under such a defect of reason as not to know the nature of the act he or she was doing. The word “know” has been a source of controversy and criticism
Lord Peter loves the thrill a new assignment can bring, just as any other person can enjoy discovering something new or does what they truly love. People get tired of routine and of bland circumstances, which is why Lord Peter addresses why the case he is working on does not fulfill him. He says, “ ‘Competent, of course, but no imagination. I want imagination in a criminal.’ “(50). When something is done with imagination, it is usually well thought and done. If anyone tries to figure out how that work was gone, it is hard because of the amount of thought process that was put in it. It is no fun to know everything because there is not any mystery or point to what is being done. Lord Peter seems to think that these cases have no point and asks his valet to restrain him “ ‘ from starting two hares at once.
Have you ever been accused of something you did/didn’t commit? That is one question, Meursault and Josef K. can answer for us today. Meursault an ordinary man from “The Stranger” is accused of his mother’s death while Josef K. a young man on his birthday from, “The Trial” is accused of a crime he isn’t even aware of. These two young men’s cases and experiences have much in common as well as they differ.
A topic of conversation that always comes up when I mention that I’m doing a placement with a criminal barrister, one who works as both defence counsel and for the prosecution, is the idea of representing a client who is ‘guilty’. I’m asked “but what if you know that they did it?” and “wouldn’t you feel bad if they got off?” Ysaiah Ross considered the ‘moral lawyer’ in his paper, and discussed Wasserstrom’s ‘role-differentiated behaviour’. This included that the role of the lawyer requires ignorance of moral considerations as a result. Ross commented on a comic of a rocket scientist saying that it was his job to get the rockets up, and that where they come down is ‘not [his] department’. He also remarked that the Director of Extermination in Auschwitz stated that he didn’t murder anybody; he was just the Director of Extermination. Similarly, a consideration of ‘guilt’ is counterproductive as defence counsel.