Jury Trial Research Paper

Doc D has a note under the comic shown. In my opinion, this note says something very important that he did. L.B.J. made a provision saying that anyone that would break the laws in the Civil Rights Act, would get a jury trial. Since the people that would WANT to break these laws are the people from the south, they then would go to a trial with a potential all-white jury and most likely get away with what they did. This shows how Lyndon B. Johnson used the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for a political reason.


 Foster filed a motion after the trial for post-judgement discovery regarding the prosecution’s notes and records. This motion was denied. Foster then filed a motion for a new trial, restating his previous arguments, and was denied again. In 1988, Foster filed a direct appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court which resulted in an affirmation of the trial court’s ruling concerning the Batson allegations (Bright, 2015, p. 3-4). In 1989, Foster filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Superior Court of Butts County, Georgia to address his intellectual state which temporarily suspended the rest of the case.

This is especially a concern in the case of murder and determining whether the defendant was legally insane or guilty, but mentally ill. These two scenarios can have very different outcomes whether the defendant will serve their time in prison or in a mental institution, but also on the length of the sentence. In the case of John DuPont, the jury had to determine whether DuPont was sane or legally insane at the time of the crime, but also whether he was mentally ill. After DuPont was later determined competent to stand trial (after months of treatment with antipsychotic medication), the jury was inundated with testimony that was able to establish patterns of DuPont’s behavior that did not necessarily prove he was insane, but could establish he was mentally ill.

The Supreme Court ruled that it did not violate the eighth amendment and was constitutional. This brings up the question “Was the case properly determined by the Supreme Court or should it be Congress to decide?” Furman v. Georgia (1972) was a case similar to Gregg’s. A man was convicted of murder and burglary. He has sentenced the death penalty.

The jury system originated in England hundreds of years ago. The colonists brought the jury system from England to the United States. In 1733, John Zenger, a printer, printed a newspaper critical for the British Government. His attorney convinced the jury to be in favor for Zenger because his criticisms were true. After this trial, it gave ordinary citizens the freedom of speech and the power to go against the king.

Ring v. Arizona 536 U.S. 584, 598 (2001). Because Apprendi was “irreconcilable” with Walton insofar that the “trial judge, sitting alone, determines the presence or absence of the aggravating factors required by Arizona law for imposition of the death penalty,” we overruled Walton. Id at 588. Ring also states that finding an aggravated factor operates the same as finding an element of a greater offense than the defendant was charged and tried by the jury. Id at 609.

According to this article, to name a few, through history, it started from hangings in 1879, then electrocution by chair in 1890, until it reached lethal injection in 2008 where it deemed more humane. Several opinions were added in order to conduct an alternative method that would have a little to no chance in violating the 8th amendment. Officials can act unconstitutionally if they were to execute a condemned person in a procedure that intentionally makes it painful or in another way where they did not care whether it actually was. Due to this, this mostly continued to set an outer limit on how the death penalty can be carried out and since the court was unable to gather an actual majority to decipher the limit more

This emphasized the need for scientific psychological evaluations and evidence to be presented in the court which ultimately left it up to the jury to decide if the defendant was in fact insane. Then they developed the Model Penal Code (1972) which created the idea that the defendant cannot be responsible for a crime when it is a result of their mental state. They did not possess a "substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law" (Francone, 2016). Lastly in 1984, Congress passed the Comprehensive Crime Control Act which requires the defendant to prove that by "clear and convincing evidence," that "at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts" (Francone, 2016). This returned the idea of knowing right from wrong as the standard.

In 1773, he was selected high sheriff of Bedfordshire and supervisioParole 1800 - Present Parole began at the end of the 1800s. When it was instituted, many prisoners were already receiving clemency, pardons and early release for good behavior. Parole began with reformatories but spread to all prisons. Parole, French meaning "word" as in giving ones word’s of honor or guarantee, has come to mean a prisoner 's guarantee to direct him or herself in a reputable way in return for discharge. Credit for building up the early parole framework is normally given to Alexander Maconochie, who was accountable for the English punitive state at Norfolk Island, 1,000 miles off the shore of Australia, and to Sir Walter Crofton, who coordinated Ireland 's jails (Cromwell and del Carmen 1999).

Roman law, was effective in the Eastern Roman Empire (331-1453), and is also the basis of our legal system, civil system which most countries apply, from Europe to Latin America. Even English and North American Common law also were influenced by Roman law, particularly in the legal glossary - stare decisis, culpa in contrahendo, pacta sunt servanda. The primary document that all Roman laws were included was the Twelve Tables. This attempt was the earliest of Romans to create a Code of Law and is also the earliest (surviving) piece of literature coming from the Romans.

Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Larry Offutt (“Offutt”), appellant, was convicted of robbery with a dangerous weapon, attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon, and related charges. On appeal, Austin presents three questions for our review, which we have rephrased as follows: 1. Whether the trial court erred by limiting cross-examination of a state’s witness regarding her involvement in an unrelated offense. 2. Whether the trial court erred in overruling an objection to the prosecutor’s statements on the grounds that the statements impermissibly shift the burden of proof to the defense.

Furman v. Georgia, the United States Supreme Court proclaimed all current capital punishment statutes at the time unlawful as an infringement of the Eighth Amendment restricting "coldblooded and unordinary discipline". There was no greater part assessment, and each of the five division share individuals composed a different sentiment. While three of them construct their choice with respect to the self-assertive and oppressive use of capital punishment. This was also the decision that said that there was an out of line penchant sentence dim people to death. It was to stop Random capital punishments made by the state, in light of the fact that the capital punishments of Georgia was strange and coldblooded which abused the eighth amendment.

The death penalty is a precedent set centuries ago as a method of punishment for severe crimes. In 1923, the state of Texas declared that those sentenced to death were to suffer through the electric chair by the hands of the state, instead of being hanged by the hands of the counties (TX Executions). Later on, Texas would adopt the lethal injection method. Many see the death penalty as an inhumane violation of the basic rights defined in the Bill of Rights. On the other hand, others may argue that it is unpractical to abolish the death penalty due to the voidance of justice.

The trial court denied both motions, and the plaintiff appealed to the state supreme court. That court ruled that the defendant 's evidence had been sufficient to raise a jury question regarding negligence and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs post-trial motions.

a reasonable doubt. After the closing arguments from both the prosecution and defense attorney, the jury will deliberate. Jury deliberation takes place in seclusion, and jury instructions from the judge will be made clear, any evidence will be reviewed, testimony and witness credibility will be taken into consideration, as well as the charges. Subsequently, the jury will reach a verdict and the judge, defendants, prosecution attorney, defense attorney, and accused will reconvene in the courtroom for the verdict to be read aloud by the jury foreman (Gaines and Miller, 2011, p.189). Once the verdict has been read, the trial process has concluded.