When William died, Justine laid in her bed, sleeping. The next morning, someone turned her in because she had on the locket that the murderer took from William. Everyone assumed she killed him. Justine had her trial and admitted to the murder. The interrogator convinced her that she would not go to heaven unless she confessed.
Supreme Court cases can shape our national laws; it can shape an American citizen’s future. Without them, the Bill of Rights could be left up for our own interpretation. This could cause unfair laws and create havoc. In 1966, a court case named Kent vs United Sates took place. This case could create the ability to shape a juvenile's life forever.
As background information developed into many details, the case got stranger and stranger. The mother Rachelle Bond and the mother 's boyfriend Michael McCarthy were both accused of murdering the little girl. Bond is being accused of accessory to murder after the fact, and McCarthy is charged with the actual
Four Teens Found Dead by the Connecticut River In mid November, four teenagers’ bodies were found in the Connecticut River. The victims were all nineteen years old. A car that was found with them had been flipped over in the river. Police had stated that the names of the victims were believed to have been Christy Stevens, Jill Sawyer, Laura Lagrotteria, and Michael Gallo.
I believe that Danforth, the judge, is to blame. He chose to listen to the girls as a verifiable source of information. He makes the ultimate ruling on who lives or dies based on their accusations. He created more fear instead of peace within the community. He didn 't question their credibility until someone else brought that issue to light.
They later found out that the remains in the sewer belonged to a kid named Tristen Jenson. The teen who killed tristen was sentenced to 15 years in prison. Is that justice? Would you still trust someone who has killed someone else? There are many arguments to be made for this case.
What is worth our attention in this movie is how in the beginning they are trying to convince each other to vote guilty. 11 juror voted guilty and only one voted not guilty. Their judgments were based upon either their past personal experience which created their thoughts and behavior or upon facts. Juror 8 represents the conscience. He stood up for his inner feelings that the accused young boy is innocent.
These five boys were all present in Central Park the night of Meili’s assault and that night, April 19th 1989, they were taken to the central park precinct. They were questioned for over twenty-four hours and forced to give a false confession. They were proven innocent thirteen years later when Reyes admitted to the crime and was proven guilty. All of the boys spent at least seven years in prison for this crime they did not even
Christopher Simmons was a seventeen year old juvenile from Missouri whom in 1993 along with two of his friends, Charles Benjamin and John Tessmer, planned to rob and murder Shirley Crook in her home (Roper v. Simmons, 2004). On the night the crime was to be committed, Tessmer pulled out of the plan, and Simmons and Benjamin would continue on as planned. The two broke into the Ms. Crook’s home, robbed her, tied her up, covered up her eyes, then drove her to a state park and threw her off a bridge. During the trial, evidence, videotaped reenactment and testimony outlining the premeditated plan, allowed for the jury to easily convict Simmons of the crime. Even though Simmons had no previous criminal record and was a minor at the time the crime was committed,
They grabbed him from a shopping mall, walked with him through the suburbs of Bootle and Walton, then took him to a secluted area on train tracks and killed him. This case attracted media attention, for the reaon of the murderers being only ten year old. In the trial 38 witness testified, that they saw the three boys and most of them saw that Bulger was in distress. But only a few of them intervened but not to the extent that they saved Bulger.
but Juror number ten said otherwise. The evidence that is shown to prove this point is when all the jurors are all at the table and they all go to the window and turn their backs towards juror number ten, specifically juror numbers three and four. This happened while the vote was nine to three, nine voted innocent and three voted guilty. Three and four turned their backs towards number ten because they disagreed on why they thought the boy was guilty. Juror number ten was an ill-mannered man who was very bigot.
The juror’s emotions affected their belief by putting the boy onto the chair. Juror number 3 was convinced that the teenage boy was guilty. This was due to his past experiences within his family; the rage that he had towards his past created a very one-sided belief. Therefore, juror number 3 let his emotions choose the side he would be on. His emotions gathered up anger, frustration and family rage leading him to ignore the rest of the information provided.
Juror eight held his ground and convince the men to look over all of the evidence. Juror eight brought out the files, acted out different situations and the murder scene. The men went back and forth for hours fighting about whether or not the boy was guilt of killing his father Slowly one by one the jurors changed their mind from guilty to not guilty. All but juror three changed their mind, he was the last one standing so the vote was 11-1.
8: I think that… as a juror… we have to really think, we have to think about all the evidence, about all the outcomes. Well if I voted guilty at the initial vote, we would’ve let the boy die but as a juror being given jury duty… one of the highest duties of citizenship… is a big duty and being trusted and chosen to have a person’s life in your hands is just way too much pressure to handle and is one of the hardest things to do in your own lifetime and a one of a lifetime experience that you will just never forget. I would say that a case like this takes so much time and needs to have a proper moral to end up with the right