He also refused to take off his hat as a sign of respect to the judges who did attend. This seemed to confirm in the minds of the judges that Charles, even when he was on trial for his life, remained arrogant and therefore a danger to others as he could not recognise his own faults. This trial is unfair in so many ways: Firstly the setting up of the court that was to try Charles 1st was written by forerunner. Secondly, the fact that people weren’t allowed into the trial just because they didn’t agree with it, in my opinion this is the most unfair part of the trial because everybody is entitled to their opinion, even back then. Thirdly, only just over half of the 46 judges agreed to the trying of Charles 1st.
When Tom Robinson has to task the stand Mr. Gilmer starts badgering him by asking him very critical questions and not giving him time to answer which is also not allowed in court. Also he starts to bring up irrelevant facts such as why he was running if he has nothing to hide, and even though Tom Robinson gave him a relevant answer it still makes him look suspicious and like there is more to the case than was already stated, which there wasn’t. To sum everything up, this piece of evidence shows that the people around did not treat him as a person being tried should be and it greatly affected the jury’s
It promotes not only a healthy criminal justice system but also a healthy society, where political leaders cannot abuse criminal justice system to silence their opponents. However the use of juries in the criminal justice system may have many problems. Firstly most jurors have little or no training in matters of law. The only legal requirement for a juror is that he knows the facts involved in case being tried. The judge guides the juries in determining the facts they can admit into evidence and the ones they must exclude.
When it comes to the Alton Logan case there is an automatic red flag thrown up on the attorneys decision to remain silent and a lot of critical comments are being thrown toward the attorneys because most of us find this silence by the attorneys to be unacceptable and very unmoral. When we start to read the details of this case we could easily begin saying that the two lawyers who represented Andrew Wislon should have spoke up and that saving an innocent man was more important than the attorney-client privilege law but then again it is easy to argue that the lawyers did the right thing by not breaking the attorney- client privilege law and if you’re willing to keep an open mind and try and see where these two lawyers are coming from in this moral decision they made, you might be swayed a different direction or at least understand the attorneys decision a little
There were instances where he seemed somewhat surprised that others on the jury did not hold his same opinion. This juror began the deliberation under some stress and irritation due to a cold that he was suffering, but he also used his circumstance to disrupt some of the discussion by coughing and blowing his nose. It wasn’t until the vote of not guilty became the majority that he became enraged and went on a rant that he became subdued as he realized the type of person that he had become. After this incident, he did not attempt to disrupt the discussion of evidence and
During my visit to the D.C. Superior Court, I was surprised at the incompetency on the part of public defense attorneys that seemed rather relaxed about their cases. This was a stark contrast to the District Court where the defendant had hired an extremely competent defense attorney, who paid attention to detail and sought to challenge many points emphasized by the prosecution. The attorneys followed specific procedures before making a motion, and prefaced each set of questions with their purpose as well as the evidence and witnesses involved. While the same procedures were followed in the Superior Court, there was a noticeable difference in the attitude and respect toward the senior District Court judge. During recess, in the absence of the jury, Judge Kennedy discussed with the two attorneys the purpose of following series of questions, role of evidence, and the inclusion of the police officer as a witness.
Another alternative course of action would have been for the chief and department to answering the questions from the media instead of refusing to speak to them. This would have settled a lot of questions that were needing to be answered from the beginning and not make the chief or the department looking guilty of trying to conceal information. In the end the outcome of this whole situation is that now there are two officers in jail, APD under fire again, and an individual who suffered injuries that weren’t warranted. This also opens a door for lawsuit to be
A normal lawyer would not that have done as much as Atticus has done if he was to defend Tom. During the trial, Atticus tries to provide as much evidence as possible to the jury to prove the innocence of Tom Robinson and that Bob Ewell was the one who beat up Mayella. During his cross examination with Heck Tate, he repeatedly asked Mr Tate which side of Mayella’s face she was beaten on, when Atticus confirmed that Mayella was beaten on the right side of her face, Atticus asked Bob Ewell to write his name on a paper, although the intention of this request was unclear to the Mr Ewell before he done it, he figures it out after he did it. Judge Taylor says ‘ You are left handed’ to Mr Ewell, this suggests that Bob Ewell could well be the one who beat up Mayella as he is left handed and Mayella was beaten on the right side of face. Although there’s clear evidence that Tom was innocent, the verdict is that Tom was still convicted, because such a decision to make Tom innocent is just something that would rarely happen as the intolerance in Maycomb towards the blacks can’t simply be changed by one person, Part of the reason Atticus failed the trial is that he doesn’t have much support form the people in
According to Law Info (1995-2014), “The biggest drawback to plea bargaining is for the innocent defendant who decides to plead guilty to a lesser charge in order to avoid the risk that he or she will be found guilty at trial (The Pros and Cons of Plea Bargaining). Plea bargaining has led to poor police investigations which lead to defense attorneys who do not want to deal with poorly prepared cases (Law Info, 1995-2014). Another downside to the bargaining system is that defendants are not tried for their offenses and provided due process. The defendant does not get their time in
An example of ineffective demonstrative communication could be an innocent person going to court for a criminal offense. This person may show a loss of confidence, they may not speak clearly and may look very badly because of stress, etc. A juror may look at this person and say they look guilty. The defendant should have worked harder to convey their innocence to the jury by using demonstrative communication more effectively. Another example is a company’s human resources department.