...Proc 5840 Negotiations November 26 2014 Major Issues The major issue in this case was rather or not the young man was guilty of killing his father. According to the majority of the jurors there was no doubt in their minds the prosecutor had presented a good case and the boy should be found guilty. However Juror number eight began to question some of the evidence that was presented at the trial. From the onset juror number eight stated that he wasn’t sure if the boy was guilty or innocent and would like to talk to the other members to discuss the facts. Several times throughout the movie it was mentioned that the jury might be hung. There were several votes with one or two members deflecting to the not guilty side on every vote. Juror eight showed resiliency by not changing his not guilty vote once. As the movie went on and every fact was debated and it was showed that there was a lot of doubt in the testimony that was presented during the trial. Juror eight’s collaborative negotiation style keep talks alive throughout which keep the other juror members talking. I feel as if the turning point was when a key witness the old man who stated that he had saw the boy running out of the apartment was debated. There were several points in his testimony in which the jury showed that was likely untrue. The fact that old man stated that he had gotten up out of his chair and made it to his door unlocked it and looked out in fifteen seconds. After a demonstration it showed...
Words: 5460 - Pages: 22
...Issues…………………………………………………………………………………………..5 Analysis of Juror Number Eight……………………………………………………………………………7 Analysis of Juror Number Four…………………………………………………………………………...13 Analysis of Juror Number Nine…………………………………………………………………………...17 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………………….19 12 Angry Men Character Listing Juror Number One (Martin Balsam): The jury foreman, he got off to a shaky start. However, he took his role seriously and facilitates voting. He was generally passive. Outside of the jury room he was an assistant high school football coach. Juror Number Two (John Fielder): This shy bank clerk was initially reluctant to participate and seemed intimidated by other jurors. Although he exhibited a tendency toward avoidance, eventually he contributed to the discussion. His opinion was easily swayed and he appeared to parrot other jurors. Juror Number Three (Lee J. Cobb): This small business owner shared the story of his turbulent relationship with his own son. He was aggressive and confrontational, using hard bargaining tactics such as intimidation, threats, and insults to influence others. He was the last juror to change his mind. Juror Number Four (E.G. Marshall): A calm, rational, and self-assured stockbroker, he concentrated on the facts of the case. He remained logical and participated fully in the debate. He did not change his vote until each point had been fully examined. Juror Number Five (Jack Klugman): The youngest juror, he resided in a slum neighborhood...
Words: 3945 - Pages: 16
...Twelve Angry Men: Justice is Served Twelve Angry Men takes you into a day in the lives of twelve jurors in a New York City courthouse. In the hands of the jurors lies the fate of a young man accused of stabbing his father. Throughout the film, the audience becomes familiar with each of the jurors and is quickly introduced to topics at issue such as discrimination, iniquitous motives, and concerns about the American judicial system. As the twelve jurors deliberate to reach a verdict, the film epitomizes the validation and condemnation of the American justice system. There are many responsibilities of a jury: to achieve fair and impartial decision, determine guilt or not guilt, give people voice in the government, and to protect the rights of the accused. In other words, the main point of the jury system is not to provide innocence but eradicating or sustaining reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence is a key theme in the narrative that reflects one of the distinct characteristics of the American justice system. As much as this film is about lessons of discrimination, fate, and impartiality, it is also a lesson of the American justice system. Although this film demonstrates many imperfections in the court system, as imperfect human beings, perhaps it is necessary that justice call upon such a system. As shown in Twelve Angry Men, the American justice system, although seemingly flawed, works for us imperfect human beings Aside from the opening courtroom scene where...
Words: 2917 - Pages: 12
...Defiance Of course, one of the famous, attractive and effective movies, which illustrate jury trial system in the US, is Twelve Angry Men (1957). American Film Institute revealed that the movie was the second best film in the Court Drama genre (AFL’s 10 Top 10). Exploration of this film, when jury trial does not happen in Islamic Court, deeply influenced the concepts such as the true judgment and justice in my mind as a Muslim. This paper is aimed to discuss and analysis several instances of defiance behaviors, which are displayed in the movie. It also considers strategies groups utilize to extinguish defiance in each instances of defiance. The first scene; all jurors sat around the table exception for the foreman who concerned to keep formal procedure in the group. He mentioned if all jurors get a unanimous verdict, the defendant would charge mandatory death sentence. He started to count the votes “guilty”, while jurors were raising their hands. Juror number 1, 3, 4, 7, 10 and 12 quickly put up their hands but jurors 2, 5, 6, 11 and 9 raised with slightly pause. Juror number 8 was the only person who believed the boy is not guilty and he had not been conceived to put someone into a death sentence:”It's not easy to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first...We're talking about somebody's life here. We cannot decide in five minutes.” Certainly, it would be hard to become alone against the group. The juror number 8 is the first defiant...
Words: 1304 - Pages: 6
...A jury of twelve men (the committee) is locked in the deliberation room to decide the fate of this young boy. All evidence is against the boy and a guilty verdict would send him to die in the electric chair. The judge informed the jurors that they are faced with a grave decision and that the court would not entertain any acts of mercy for the boy if found guilty. Even before the deliberation talks begin it is apparent most of the men are certain the boy is guilty. However, when the initial poll is taken Juror #8 (Henry Fonda) registered a shocking not guilty vote. Immediately the room is in uproar. The rest of the jury resents the inconvenient of his decision. After questioning his sanity they hastily decide to humor the juror #8 (Henry Fonda) by agreeing to discuss the trial for one hour. Eventually, as the talks precede juror #8 slowly undermines their confidence by saying that the murder weapon is widely available to anyone, and that the testimony of the key witness is suspect. Gradually they are won over by his arguments and even the most narrow minded of his fellow jurors hesitantly agrees with him. Their verdict is now a solid not guilty. Arriving at a unanimous not guilty verdict does not come easily. The jury encounters many difficulties in learning to communicate and deal with each other. What seems to be a decisive guilty verdict as deliberations begin slowly becomes a questionable not sure. The movie deals with issues relating to the process of decision making, communication...
Words: 2817 - Pages: 12
...play is about twelve jurors who are to decide the verdict of a 19 year old boy who is accused of killing his father. The jurors go into a room with the foreman to talk about the case and decide on a verdict. The vote has to be unanimous either guilty or not guilty for the case to end. To start the deciding, the jurors decide to take a preliminary vote to see where they stand. After counting the ballots the vote is 11 to 1, guilty. Juror number eight is the one who votes not guilty. The reason that juror eight voted not guilty was because he was not sure that the boy was guilty and he wanted to talk about it. One of the jurors decided to take a minute for each juror to tell their side of the story and what they personally think about the case. After a lot of main points were made such as there being two of the identical knives, the woman in her apartment saying she saw the murder take place through the window of the El train, and how the old man said that he heard the boy say that he was going to kill his father and then went to his door to see the boy run down the stairs. After all of this has taken place they decide to take another vote. The verdict is still 11 to 1 in the favor of guilty. Juror eight is now going over the time periods of when the woman said she saw the murder. Juror eight is also trying to explain how the man could not have seen the boy run down the stairs because the old man would not have had enough time to get out of bed. After juror eight makes all of his...
Words: 2037 - Pages: 9
...The Assignment BUS 520 Meaning of action: semantic vs pragmatic. The importance of language : How we speak about action; what are the specific circumstances between actors. Language creates new meanings. New linguistic meanings create new possibilities and social realities. And language and action inform each other. Example: the statement “Jump from the window!” can mean many things. The statement can be “reinterpreted in many ways” and “different kinds of actions” are compatible/triggered by that statement, other than the literal interpretation and action that reflects the literal meaning. Semantics views action as propositional sentences. Seen as statements that someone makes to someone about something; they refer to events in the world (mere descriptions of things). Theory of action: from what? To Why? To who? (the agent). Focusing too much on What? and Why? and losing track of Who? (The who? Is ultimately needed for understand action from an ethical perspective.) We need to understand action related to an agent (not just a logical agent but a self). Attribution (of predicates) to a logical subject is not the same as: Ascription to a self where the agent can self-designate himself in the action he performed (or better yet, that he has not yet performed). Imputation (of moral value to an action) is an improvement over attribution but it is not enough. We must distinguish between event vs. action, knowing how vs. knowing that. Action can...
Words: 6365 - Pages: 26
...officer. Meaning "right order, equity" is late 14c. Justice of the peace first attested early 14c. In the Mercian hymns, Latin iustitia is glossed by Old English rehtwisnisse. To do justice to (someone or something) "render fully and fairly showing due appreciation" is from 1670s. This word, with such a strong connotation, influenced and formed the basis of many philosophical thinking; explained in a thousand ways, through a thousand procedures (methods), has been used for so long that it became hackneyed and often we do not know where it starts and where it ends anymore. Not only that it is not white or black, it is a lot of shades of gray, sometimes so similar that those who are color-blind will not even make a difference. But for the ones who do, it has...
Words: 5039 - Pages: 21
...Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus SKILLING v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 08–1394. Argued March 1, 2010—Decided June 24, 2010 Founded in 1985, Enron Corporation grew from its headquarters in Houston, Texas, into the seventh highest-revenue-grossing company in America. Petitioner Jeffrey Skilling, a longtime Enron officer, was Enron’s chief executive officer from February until August 2001, when he resigned. Less than four months later, Enron crashed into bankruptcy, and its stock plummeted in value. After an investigation uncovered an elaborate conspiracy to prop up Enron’s stock prices by overstating the company’s financial well-being, the Government prosecuted dozens of Enron employees who participated in the scheme. In time, the Government worked its way up the chain of command, indicting Skilling and two other top Enron executives. These three defendants, the indictment charged, engaged in a scheme to deceive investors about Enron’s true financial performance by manipulating its publicly reported financial results and making false and misleading statements. Count 1 of the indictment charged Skilling with, inter alia, conspiracy to commit “honest-services” wire fraud, 18 U. S. C. §§371, 1343, 1346, by depriving Enron and its shareholders of the intangible right of his honest services. Skilling was also charged with over 25 substantive counts...
Words: 40397 - Pages: 162
...Courtroom Participants Team B: Sheena McCall, Idalia Gill, Neil Gabe, Billie Adams, and Dannielle Rea CJA/224 October 31, 2011 Austin Dunham Weidner Courtroom Participants In a United States courtroom, there are many participants who contribute to the goal of justice for all. The judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, defendant, victims, witnesses, jurors, bailiff, and court reporter are each participants in the courtroom workgroup. Although every participant plays a different role in the process, they each contribute to the courts general objective of ensuring that the legal system remains fair, efficient, and effective to those individuals accused of committing a crime. A judge’s role is essential to court proceedings. He or she is responsible for ensuring the court proceedings are legal, and that the defendant receives his or her rights of due process. The judge does this by setting the rules of the courtroom and acting as a referee between opposing council. Although a judges’ most visible role is during a criminal or civil trial, he or she has many responsibilities outside of this setting. Prior to any court hearing, the judge is responsible for signing search and arrest warrants. Judges also deal with the issue of bail once established that there is enough evidence to hold a criminal trial against the defendant during the preliminary hearing. Judges decide on whether to grant bail, and if so at what amount and on what conditions. If any of the conditions are broken...
Words: 3832 - Pages: 16
...presided. The defendant had pleaded guilty prior to this hearing on 15th October 2013. 3. What were the charges against the defendant? Were these summary or indictable offences? How did you know this? Williamson entered a guilty plea to four major charges related to cheating and defrauding Health Services Union (HSU), creating false documents with the intention to deceive, and the recruiting of others to hinder a police investigation. Of these four charges, Williamson was charged with two counts of Director Cheat and Defraud which, which according to s.176A of the NSW Crimes Act 1900 No 40 carries a maximum penalty of ten years, one count of Officer Publish False Statement which carries a maximum of seven years according to s.192H of the Act, and two counts of Recruiting Another to Assist in Carrying out a Criminal Act s351A(1) of the Act. There were four forms of this count each carrying a maximum penalty of seven years per form. In Australian common law jurisdictions (New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria) an indictable offence is an offence that is tried on an indictment where an individual has been formally accused of a crime and those charges must be brought before a court due to the more serious nature of the offence compared to that of summary offences (Findlay et al., 2009). Williamson pleaded guilty to these charged in a previous trial hearing and pursuant to s.53 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedures) Act 1999 Williamson received an...
Words: 2691 - Pages: 11
... The double-murder trial of O.J. Simpson is surely one that will live in infamy. From the controversial “If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit” phrase coined by his superstar attorney Johnnie Cochran to the jaw-dropping verdict of not guilty this case has made its mark in history. In 1994 Nicole Brown-Simpson and Ronald Goldman were found stabbed to death. With no other obvious suspects, Brown-Simpson’s husband Orenthal James Simpson became the object of law enforcement’s suspicion and was charged with the murders. The case was brought to trial and with seemingly solid physical evidence the prosecution went into attack mode painting a picture that was supposed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson was guilty of premeditated murder. However, having a “Dream Team” defense, as it was called proved to be far more beneficial to Simpson that anyone I this nation would have ever thought. The defense lawyers used mechanisms such as racial profiling and police corruption to mangle the prosecution’s case and discredit every piece of information that was once presumed viable. The trial deliberations grabbed the attention of almost every American and for the duration people stayed glued to the television awaiting the verdict. What was the crime the defendant was alleged to have committed? What are the elements of that crime? Orenthal James (O. J.) Simpson, the defendant, was allegedly convicted on two counts of murder charges of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and...
Words: 2126 - Pages: 9
...1. Getting started It is a matter of some interest that logic and the law should share so many of their foundational concepts – concepts such as proof, evidence, truth, inference, probability, plausibility, presumption and reasonableness – and yet should have had very little to say to one another within living memory. It is not especially surprising that logic and the law should have suffered (I use the word in its Latin sense) this alienation. With regard to its foundational concepts – for example, the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the concept of the balance of probabilities, the concept of the reasonable person – the law embeds am implied epistemology of implicity. There exists among practitioners, especially judges, the view that definitions and formalizations of such notions are both unnecessary and is liable to conceptual distortion. But definitions and formalizations are mother’s milk to logicians. Where the law favours approximation and contextually sensitive nuance, logicians thrive on exactitude and rigour. So why wouldn’t the lawyers and logicians go about their business without the regard of the one for the other? It would be wrong to leave the impression that there is no analytical exactitude in the law. It would also be a mistake to suggest that there has been no contact with the formal disciplines. Trials are often complex and judgements often embed exhaustive and detailed analyses of relevant points of law. In recent years probability theorists have...
Words: 14399 - Pages: 58
...piece of evidence can make or break the case. If that evidence is not collected properly than the prosecution is looking at a huge loss. Knowing this information is not only helpful in the criminal justice career, but also in our everyday personal lives. If a person caught in a situation where they are being interrogated by the police, it’s good to know what to expect and the full rights. One more key interest in the Fifth Amendment is the Miranda rights and the details surrounding when the rights are given, told, to the person. The objective is to show how cases are handled, and how Fifth Amendment plays one of major roles in the handling of criminal cases. The details of the case are important, and knowing when to make a move and ask certain questions, or making someone confess. Due Process is such an important concept of American law that no precise definition accurately suits it, although the concept is simple: basic fairness must remain part of the process. It is the right to hear and the right to be heard (Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System, 2008, p.269). Due Process is one of the greatest American benefits, a part of our culture if you will. Fairness is the idea of doing what's best. It may not be perfect, but it's the good and decent thing to...
Words: 1610 - Pages: 7
...Part 1- Facts of the Case Prior to the Tyco scandal, the company was one of America's largest conglomerates, with operating revenues of 38 billion dollars and 240,000 employees, worldwide. Tyco Laboratories began operations in 1960, performing experimental work for the U.S. government. The firm went public in 1964 and quickly expanded, mostly by acquisition, to exploit the commercial applications of its work. Dennis Kozlowski joined the company in 1975 as an assistant controller. The company subsequently shifted its focus from growth to profits within its three primary divisions: fire protection, electronics, and packaging. Kozlowski joined Tyco's board in 1987 and became president and chief operating officer two years later. Kozlowski engineered a coup to become Tyco's chief executive officer (CEO) in 1992 and the chair of the board in 1993. He diversified the company, branching into health care. Tyco eventually became the second largest producer of medical devices in the United States. On December 5, 2001, the Tyco shares were trading for 59.76 on the NYSE. B. Identification of all individuals or firms who knew about, participated in, or condoned the behavior. The primary people that were identified for responsibility of the scandal were Dennis Kozlowski and finance chief, Mark Swartz. Kozlowski joined the company in 1975 as an assistant controller at Tyco. He worked in the company during a time of rapid expansion and moved to the board of directors in 1987, become CEO in...
Words: 9473 - Pages: 38
