Finally, Wayne Williams took the stand and testified, which resulted in very unfavorable attention from the jury (The Atlanta, n.d.). His angry and combative demeanor on the witness stand left jury members with little sympathy (The Atlanta, n.d.). It only took the jury approximately ten hours to deliberate and reach a guilty verdict, however, if the fiber evidence was not presented I do not believe the deliberation would have been so quick and most likely would have resulted in a not guilty
That was proven, but that does not prove how Caylee died or who put Caylee in that trunk of the car. In order to charge someone with murder, you need to know how they killed a person, or at least be able to answer who, what, when, where why and how. None of those questions were answered. They were not able to prove how Caylee died and that was a big factor! The prosecution failed miserably.
Once someone steps in the court room to oversee a trial of this caliber (or any caliber) they must not and will not let the media dictate their perspective of events. Scott Peterson’s jury saw the burden of proof provided by the prosecution and were left with no doubt in their minds by their own deductions he was guilty. The Casey Anthony jury on the other hand took all of the evidence into consideration, but they still were not completely convinced she was capable of the charges being filed against her, leaving them no other decision but to provide a not guilty
Nancy Grace went on to explain the details of why she thinks that Steven Avery is guilty. Her tooth was found on Avery 's property and as Grace explains several of her things, including her cell phone were found burned on the property. Nancy Grace thinks that this is just too much evidence for the police to have planted it
Paul, the evidence from the DA’s office, the doctors, members of the Children's Institute International (CII) and clients. He had to work together with them to defend his case. This was shown when a plea bargain was offered to Ms. MaMartin. 2. How significant was discretion with respect to the defense attorney?
It is difficult to be impartial. One of the reasons that C stated for the delay was that the accused had told her “every time” during an incident that nobody would believe her, that she would be in trouble, and she was in the wrong. He also told her that nobody would ever love her after they found out about all of the terrible things that she had
Anisia had been so confident in the case that she hadn't even gotten a material witness, she was solely depending on her facts to win the case. The defense on the other hands had many witnesses but none could prove that Vanessa was guilty, their witnesses seemed to help Anisias side of the argument. Once both sides were done questioning, the jury ordered a recess for the jury to discuss their final verdict. Walking back into the courtroom made Anisia almost nauseous, the buildup seemed to be almost too much for Anisia. “Has the jury reached a verdict?”
However, in the game where it is the suspect 's word against the witness, it is hard to prove one’s own innocence. The chance of you winning any sort of favor from the neutral party is little, as everyone wants to place a blame on someone, so why not put it on the person everyone suspects.
Do you empathize with the defendant? Do you feel bad for her and the events that have taken place in her life? Nine times out of ten a jury member will answer yes to one if not all of these questions allowing him/her to be influenced by the woman’s
“The court will now be called to order.” Silence fell as newspeople, observers, the jury, the defendant, the accuser, and their lawyers shuffled to their seats. The accuser, Dafnia Maeson, sniffled into a napkin. The defendant, Aza Malakye, shifted in his seat, casting furtive glances at Maeson. Maeson’s lawyer stood.
Also the defendant put up a fight against the denial of allegations which showed less help to the advantage of trying to be greater and not showing harmful effect. The appellate court reversed his conviction and found that the testimony prejudiced defendant because it implicated him as gang member and had the effect of impeachment,
It was so impressive to watch the prosecutors and the defense attorney trying to persuade juries. It was just like the court scene I saw in American TV dramas. But since it was not the drama, they had made some mistakes. The prosecutor sounded overly showy and somewhat looked less prudent by using the phrase like ‘oh brother’. Also he had mistaken the dates several times, and wrote March instead of May.