Mock Trial Analysis

My role in the mock trial was to be the Nurse which was one of the defense witnesses. I sat behind the defense attorneys and waited till my name was called to go up on the stand. Once I was up in the witness booth, I had to raise my right hand and say that I swear; to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help God, and I did. I was questioned by the defense side and then the prosecution side. The defense took it easy on me, but the prosecution took it hard and they were determined to win the case.

The entire trial was a sham, extremely corrupt due to jury manipulation from the defendant. The jury was allowed to go home to deliberate, giving them time to be threatened, and create a biased opinion from family, friends, media, ect. Also in the court, the judge had suppressed both the wire tape recordings and the lie detector test, throwing away crucial evidence. Not to mention that the only survivor of the

However, rooming house owner, Bessie Brewer said in her April 4, 1968 interview, Ray didn't ask for a room on the north side or check the

Merely 14 years before the Duel, another greater and even more complicated problem arose, shaking the newly founded nation and arising conflicts between the North sections of the country and the South: slavery. The problem wasn’t slavery itself; for slavery was an ongoing tradition began within the Europeans and passed down so that the families of the slave owners would then inherit the slaves. The problem that came forward was one that wasn’t anticipated before.

As I entered the court, the trial has already commenced so I did not really know how a real trial started. I sat in the back where the public sits, facing the judge bench. The courtroom was cold and quiet. Especially it was very small, much smaller and less impressive than I expected.. Everyone was in formal dressing code. There were just a few number of spectators and family members in the court room. There was a clerk who was typing everything what was happening during the court time. Judge Krocker appeared to have things under control and had the proceedings moving forward smoothly. She was a very friendly lady with short blonde hair. She was listening attentively. She spoke clearly and distinctly so that everyone in the courtroom could hear. Samuel Gallegos is a white man about 5 '8 tall. He looked quite nervous while some police officers were standing behind him. From what I understood, this case was really happening back in 2014 and the suspect has criminal history relating to assault of child and another related case to this case. On my left hand side were the bailiffs while some others stood observed

Our verdict in our trial was guilty and I don't believe that verdict is correct because we did not kidnap him he came with us willingly because he wanted have someone play Indians with him. But I guess that the prosecuting team had more evidence to support their claim. I dont think that verdict was fair either way.

In 1973, Yvonne Wanrow, a 5'4" Native American women, was convicted of second degree felony murder. She had shot and killed a 6'2" white man named William Wesler who had raped her babysitter's daughter and attacked Wanrow's son. Her appeal was bought to the attention of the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York which was directed by two feminist lawyers. The legal argument developed for women's "equal right to trial" was the law of self defense was biased again women based off the battered women's movement. A movement with knowledge of past problems women faced with homicide under the circumstances of male physical abuse or sexual assault, discriminative stereotypes of women, multiple abuse of both women and children, etc. In this case,

So when I first got there I had the idea that it was a mock trial. It was not until we start and they started going over the history of the Texas Supreme Court and how they are able to travel thought the state did I realize that the court cases were real. Which, I am glad that they were real cases because that would have been boring if they were mock. So once I got that all right in my head I started to focus on the cases the first one was at some point difficult to follow to quote my friend who’s in high school “I don’t get why everybody is so mad about so ranch there is plenty of it at Walmart at leas that’s what that one dude said”. Now, my friends, he is the class clown, so I knew it was a joke but he did ask me “for real why did he keep

Your honor, ladies and gentleman of the jury, me and my co-counsel, Diego Espinosa and Andrew Cope would like to thank you for the generous time you have taken today. Now, this case is a very simple case about how one person is denied humanity and a chance at a different life for the so-called “crimes” that they have committed. Crimes put beyond the thought of normality. They are crimes that enslave innocent people. I would like to ask you one question… What is truth? Truth is facts, truth is evidence, and truth is as important as the quill pen of Thomas Jefferson’s hand for our America.

The competency standard refers to whether or not a defendant has a rational and a factual understanding of the proceeding against him or her and that he or she has the sufficient present ability to consult with his or her attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding (Dusky v. U.S., 1960). This standard is known as the Dusky standard and is used in both the juvenile justice system and in the criminal justice system. In order for a defendant to be considered competent under the Dusky standard, there are additional things that need to be considered. They include that he or she has sufficient memory to relate things in his or her own personal manner, that he or she has an elementary mental

In terms of the actual trial, it was highly dramatized and clearly intended for a cinematic audience. For one, there were no opening statements given and the trial started off going directly into witness testimony through direct and cross examinations. This is highly inaccurate as the opening statements are a crucial part of the trial in that they aid the jury in understanding the complex legal issues that will unfold (Budziak).

A Jury plays a necessary part in the criminal justice system in England and Wales. Trial by jury is one of the ways that could be useful for reaching justice in the courts. The jury has 12 citizens who are chosen randomly from different genders and different ages. (The Guardian, 2005) the jurors work is to help the judge to a make decision about the case so the lawyers show them the evidence and anything related to the case and then the jurors will try to make the right judgment whether the criminal is guilty or not.

I was still filled with anticipation and was quite surprised at the differences between my first and second experience. I was formally dressed and did not really blend in with anyone else sitting in the courtroom. The attorneys seemed to come and go as they pleased, with no deference or respect for the proceedings in session.

The interaction between the attorney and defendants was impersonal to me. The public defender was the first person to come in the the courtroom. When you're a public defender you're going to have a lot of clients, but he has almost everyone in the room. My immediate thought was the people are being done a disservice because the defense attorney is responsible for too many people to give anyone the required attention. He had to figure out all the people that he was responsible for that day and have a conversation to get a feel for their case. I don’t see how everyone can be properly defended with this method. But as the case went out it seemed to me that the attorney either didn’t know much about the defendant's story. The attorney didn’t seem too enthusiastic either because he didn’t make much objections and stayed seated the whole time. Other than initial conversation before their trial, the attorneys and defendants don’t have much interaction. The interaction between both attorneys was more friendly than I would’ve imagined. I don’t know if this was actually how it is, pretrial is not taken as serious as normal trial, or I have misconception that attorneys are always adversarial from TV. There was frequent communication amongst them between cases and all of it didn’t seem necessary. I wondered if this was reasoning for the lack of objections during the hearings. I imagine both attorneys being really

Going to an actual courtroom and watching a case trial was very different to what I have seen on television. On shows such as “The People’s Court,” there were times were people would laugh at what the plaintiff or the defendant said and or something that the judge may have said. The trial I saw was nothing like what I had seen on television show. Everyone was quiet and very respectful, but most important of all the judge took the case very serious. Another difference from television portrayals and an