During the arraignment for Mr. Bann’s trial, he was charged for first degree murder. Mr. Bann pleaded not guilty to the charges. Since this was a murder trial there were 12 jury member, and a judge. The role of the judge is to keep order in court,s and sentence the accused if found guilty .The judge is also known as the “trier of law”, and the “trier of fact”. The judge is the one that decides whether the evidence presented in court is admissible or not. The purpose of the jury in a jury trial is to decide whether the accused is guilty, or not based of the evidence presented by the crown, and defence attorney. The jury have to listen to the evidence that is presented in the trial, and make a decision beyond reasonable doubt. In a jury trial, the judge is appointed to the case by the state, and the jury is picked from voters list. …show more content…
During the crown's cross examination it seemed that they were not prepared compared to the defence. The crown wrote the conclusion on spot, and did not have most of the question prepared. The cross examination was not well done because they had no question prepared prior to the trial, and they only asked a limited amount of questions. They mostly just focused on the big details during the cross examination of the defence’s witnesses. When discrediting the accused during the crown's cross examination the crown did a decent job showing the accused was not a good witness, because he could not answer crown’s questions. If crown prepared before the trial, they could have asked questions to the accused that he could answer. If the crown had asked more questions, and payed attention to the smaller details, there cross examination would have been much better, and they would have done a better job discrediting the defence’s