Summary: Judge Tuttle

The fact that it was a well-known case from all the media outlets already put even more pressure over this new district attorneys head. John Skagen's case had no real chance, because of this fact. Sad but true fact The accused James Richardson had the well know William Kunstler, who was very popular, well-liked lawyer with well-known cases. Mr. Kunstler knew exactly how to work the jury. He had the upper hand to begin with in this case. As for the outbursts throughout the

The prosecution works to get their guilty verdict while the defense tries to help their clients with their verdicts. In court I listen to both sides argue the Innocence/Guilt of the young woman in question wanted on DWI charges. The honorable judge Pauline Hankins presides over the court and waits patiently for all the evidence to be presented. The prosecution and the defense are set on opposite sides of the courtroom while the jury box and the belief are set next to the judge. Judge Pauline Hankins is in the middle of the courtroom in front of the North Carolina State seal with an office on the right next to the witness stand. Everything that has been said in the court is added to the court record. The court record is a detailed document

My understanding of the court system has changed almost weekly from the beginning of my semester. I do understand things that I never thought I would’ve have known or even cared about in the least. The book Courtroom 302 has brought an even different side of thinking into this. The book goes into detail about the criminal court in Chicago. He watches all of the actions and different trials that come and go in the courtroom 302. He presents many different cases throughout the book which gives more insight then just a single case.

Judge Johnson was very respectful to the defendants and their attorneys. He read every case’s documents thoroughly, talked to the defendants and their attorneys respectfully, made sure he interpreted the law wisely, gave every party a fair hearing, and enforced the law with love and

1) The jury in this film is relatively diverse. Although on the whole diversity spectrum it isn’t, we see diversity in the age ranges of the jury members and in their different classes, and levels of education. The diversity helps the team in the aspect that it helps seem jury members see differently to others. It allowed some of them to give the defendant a chance and understand the circumstances he had be brought up in and the lifestyle he’d lived in. An example would be when the kid was called slum by certain jury members whereas others gave him a chance.

Including from their own lives each juror has gone through a point in time were even they were stereotyped by the world. The jury has been convinced that the boy has been severely stereotyped through the whole case and court. The 3rd juror let the case come into his own life and he made his own opinion on the boy without even paying attention to detail, he reflected his own life in his argument with stereotypes (72). The lives of the jurors have all been affected by the acts of stereotyping and see the effects of it that can have on someone. A boy that at the beginning almost lost his life due to the people just looking at him was saved by the fact that the jury looked past all that.

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

Despite the mounting evidence that John Robison and his one good couldn't have possibly committed the horrendous crime the jury was convinced that he had. The emotions in the room were mixed, the common one was disgust that he was wrongly convicted. Even the judge looked disappointed with the obviously biased group of jurors which consisted only of white men since African Americans and women were not allowed to be present on the board. This shows the children that the world is judgmental towards appearance, character, and

Each of the nine prisoners, seven male and two female, had on different colored Oakland County Jail issued uniforms and they were seated in the jury seats of the courtroom. The demographics of the incarcerated were five white males, two black males and two black females. Their age range was from a nineteen year-old female to a 52-year-old white male. At 1:30 exactly a pretrial finished and the lawyers in unison approached the jury box to talk to their respective clients. There were twenty or more pre-trials or trials that day.

The process of the various statements given and the ability to convey such a strong message to the jury is the job of the attorney. In my open opinion, the evidence and statements given could not be outweighed by Jorge’s attorney in any way. This was aided by the fact that he was not able to support his arguments and all odds were against him. The courts system of relaying evidence to the jury and giving the people a right to choose what they honestly believe to be the truth of the situation is what todays judicial system is based upon. This was enlightening to me to see happen and I am content with what I have witnessed. Following this case, I was able to find two more that were similar in nature. The first being People v. Dontanville 10 Cal. App. 3d 783; 89 Cal. Rptr. 172; 1970 Cal. App. LEXIS

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

Throughout the film the jurors’ judgment shifts from a biased opinion to a more just and conscientious point of view. When Juror Eight says, “you don't believe the boy. How come you believe the woman? She's one of “them”, too, isn't she?” (Rose pg #). Juror Eight is making the point that the other jurors are being inconsistent in their judgement of the boy and the woman. They're both obviously from the slums, so how can the jurors see one different than the other? This makes the men take a step back and rethink how they judge people. “When you judge others, you do not define

Henry Fonda’s approach to and the perception of his persuasive communication was influenced by the individual differences in the group. Even in a single culture, different people respond differently to different persuasive techniques, and when the difference are drastic, the complications multiply. Although the 12 jurors are all white men they represent a diverse group consisting of different ages, social-economic status, and occupations. Initially, because the movie is set in the 1950’s and the defendant is non-Caucasian I assumed race would play a bigger part in the deliberation. More so, that the race of the jury would outweigh any individual difference they had. As a result, that a consensus based on this factor alone would suffice.

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