October 2, 2012 Case Brief Cupp v Murphy 412 U.S. 291 (1973) Facts: Daniel Murphy was convicted of murdering his wife in the second degree. After he found out of the murder he called the police and voluntarily submitted himself to questioning. In the middle of his questioning the police noticed a dark spot on his finger and they asked if they could get a sample and he refused. The police did not respect his wishes and they took the sample anyways of what was under his fingernail. They processed it and later found out there was traces of his wife’s nightgown, skin, and blood all from the deceased victim.
The defendant appealed the manslaughter conviction on the grounds that he could not be liable for the victim’s death as he did not physically kill her. It could be argued that the defendant was right as the victim had been killed by police bullets and not his own. The police officers involved were also negligent as they were accused of taking out the light in the hallway which left them unable to see that the victim was in front of the defendant. The police were found to be negligent and were ordered to pay civil compensation to the victim’s family. However, his appeal was rejected as the defendant’s unlawful and dangerous act directed against the
The accused is a young 19 year old boy, and the victim is the young boy’s father. When the jurors enter the Jury Room, they all think this case is open and shut – until they take the initial vote, and discover one man voted in favor of not-guilty. All the other jurors seem to think that all the evidence is laid out for them, while Juror Eight is not so sure. Juror Eight reviews all the evidence and is able to find many ways in which reasonable doubt was established. Specifically, in the testimony of the old woman, through the weapon that was used to murder the father, and finally through the testimony of the old man.
The agents were overpowered both in numbers and in firepower. Although it is tragic that two innocent FBI agents had been killed, this case was an injustice to Peltier and he did not deserve the punishment given to him. The only thing the FBI had right was that two of their agents had been killed. They had poor leads and were determined to get a conviction for the murders and Peltier was their last chance. What failed to be verified was who killed the agents.
Ms. Petrocelli is contrasting his plea of innocent, by convincing the jury that he is guilty only because he was at the scene during the robbery-homicide was taken place. He is also being charged because he is associated with all three men that were physically involved in the murder of Mr. Nesbitt. This is insufficient evidence to prove that Mr. Harmon is guilty in this case. If this was accurate, then anybody who was at the scene of a crime should also be guilty. There
I do believe the prosecution overcharged the case because they tried to go for the death penalty before all evidence was collected. The jurors in this case had to 100% agree on capital punishment if she was guilty. The final count came to 10-2 and the jury decided they could only charge her with lying to law enforcement. This case was compared to the O.J. Simpson case because of the amount of attention the media had on the case and the verdict of not guilty.
Also, the Americans who tried them are all biases and when the court case was trailed, it was the height of the red scare so all Americans were being so paranoid when they knew that a murder case had something to do with foreigners and they didn’t even find out what the truth was and just assumed that Sacco and Vanzetti were the attackers. More over , there are evidence proved that there are some people (107 of them) had confirmed that Sacco and Vanzetti were in somewhere else at the time of the crime . Those time witnesses can prove that Sacco and Vanzetti were innocent but unfortunately , most of them were recent Italian immigrants and they could hardly speak any English . That was certainly not a fair trial. Sacco and Vanzetti were not guilty to the crime at all because they had never done the crime they were charged.
Therefore Rose introduced the audience to jurors like 3, 4 and 8 who play a significant role in exposing the Juror’s duty. Juror 4 relies on logic and is in the play to simple put forward the information from the courtroom for the audience. Without Juror 8, the play would be completely different as he is the only Juror to vote ‘not-guilty’ and who wanted to ‘talk about it first’. Juror 3 on the contrary is the last one to change their vote to ‘not-guilty’ and creates tension in the play as he is full of anger and prejudice... Throughout the play, the exposed biases and flaws of the jurors along with the facts and evidence of the defendant take the audience on a journey of what it is like to be on a jury.
Twelve Angry Men is a film that chronicles the deliberation process of a jury in the decision of a murder case. The jury, while comprised of twelve men, depicts men from all walks of life—from a seemingly affluent architect to a man who has lived in slums all his life. As such, the issue of diversity seems to be the driving source behind the conflict of the film. In the beginning of the film, Mr. Davis (Henry Fonda, Juror #8) finds himself the sole juror who believes the accused is possibly wrongly accused of the crime. All other eleven men are certain that the boy is guilty.
There were many witnesses who saw the attack but none tried to stop the killing. After the killing the crowd watched one of the men give an interview (with a knife in his bloodied hands). No one tried to overpower him in case he killed again. However, a few of the women at the scene tried to give first aid to the victim and one woman tried to reason with an attacker, asking him to give her his weapons. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10073910/Woolwich-attack-terrorist-proclaimed-an-eye-for-an-eye-after-attack.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10074029/Shootings-and-machete-attack-in-south-east-London-live.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22636231 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10077616/Woolwich-attack-soldier-terror-live.html What made no one try to stop the killing and only some to try to help or reason with the assailant whilst the others did not?