Dear Jury Members:Mr.Bennett should not be found not guilty of murder because reasonable doubt is found. Although the prosecution thinks that Mr.Bennet is guilty for murder, they are wrong because since Mr.Alfario is an exterminator he had access to the poison that killed Mr.Adams, Mrs.Reid thought that when Mr.Adams died that she would inherit all his wealth, and the reason Mr. Bennett had poison on his hands because he had touched the puddle of coffee while checking Mr.Adams pulse on accident. To begin, Mr Bennett is not guilty because Mr Alfario had access to the poison, the same poison that killed Mr.adams.The police found out that Mr.Adams had died from rat poisoning and a coffee cup was found by Mr.Adams’s dead body, the cup contained rat poison. …show more content…
The rat poison that was used was a poison that was only available to exterminators. Mr Alfaro is an exterminator. Miss Singleton had saw Mr.Alfaro pouring coffee for Mr.Adams 5 minutes before Mr.Adams’s death.The cause of death to Mr.Adams was a kind of rat poison only available to exterminators and Mr Alfaro was an exterminator so he had excess to the poison, in fact he was the only person at the party who could get rat poison. His fingerprints were also found on the cup showing that he had access to Mr.Adams cup at some point and Miss Singleton also saw Mr.Alfaro pouring coffee 5 for Mr.Adams right before his death proving that he did 100% have access to Mr. Adams cup that
Dear Jury Members: Mr. Eldridge should not be found guilty of murder because there is reasonable doubt. Although the prosecution claims he is guilty, they are wrong because Barbara Wheeler had motive to murder him, for the recipe, his fingerprints were on the spatula because he took it home and cleaned it, and his footprints were not in the blood around Mr. Armes. To begin, Barbara Wheeler had a motive to murder Mr. Armes. Three days after Mr. Armes death occurred Ms. Wheeler had posted a recipe very similar to Mr. Armes. She also has admitted that she wanted to sabotage Mr. Armes restaurant, and steal his recipes.
David Elderidge should be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of murder. Although the defendant claims that he is not guilty, they are wrong because Mr. Elderidge had the motive to kill Mr. Armes, the spatula that killed Mr. Armes had Mr. Elderidge’s fingerprints on it, and Mr. Elderidge was seen at the crime scene by William Warden shortly before Mr. Armes’s death. The first reason in the case was that Mr. Eldridge had a motive to kill Mr. Armes. Sandy Smith testified Mr. Eldridge was in desperate need of money because the bank would repossess his home.
Guilty or not we see multiple people at the CSI: Crime Scene Investigation in the “Ending Happy.” Lorenzo ‘Happy’ Morales, the victim, was a middleweight boxer who had rough times and now fallen all the way down ending up at Binky’s Sugar Cane Ranch. Where there were multiple conditions contributing but not related to the immediate cause of the dead of Morales, some including contusion, BFT-crowbar, trachea punctures, crossbow, anaphylaxis, shellfish, urethra – P.O.E. and genitals distended. Yet not the cause of Morales death, there are still people to prosecute for the attempting murder. As the evidence reveals that Connor Foster and Dreama are found equally guilty for attempting murder and that my clients; Doris and George Babinkian are not
Dear Jury Members: Mr. Bennett should not be found guilty of murder because there is reasonable doubt. Although the Prosecution claims he is guilty, they are wrong because, Mr. Bennett while checking Mr Adam's pulse touch the spilled coffee, that Mrs. Ried would inherit the house and Mr. Alfoaro has rat poison, and Mr Adams had poor eyesight. First, Mr. Bennett went to go check his pulse to see if he was dead and touched the spilled coffee in the process. Mr. Bennett told the authorities that he touched the puddle of spilled coffee when he knelt by Mr. Adams when he was checking his pulse.
Dear Jury Members: In my opinion, David Eldiridge should be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of murder. Although the defense claims that he is innocent of this crime, they are incorrect because Eldridge had motive to kill Mr. Armes, there was no sign of a break-in, but all the money was gone and he had the key, and lastly, a witness had placed him at the scene near the time of the murder and his footprints were all around the body. First, David Eldridge had the motive to kill Mr. Armes because he was very angry after Mr. Armes hadn’t given him a raise and he needed money because the bank was going to repossess his house, so he could have stolen the recipe and robbed him to get the money. David was the only one that could get into the restaurant and rob Mr. Armes since he has the keys and the combo to the safe.
Another argument could have been the fact that the other defendant’s sister was in close relation to Brady which clouded his judgement to make the right descion. If circumstances were different and the prosecution never withheld evidence from the defense the “Brady Rule” would have never been established. Following the proceedings of Brady vs. Maryland the rule was created compelling the prosecution to turn over any evidence to the defense if they require it. So therefore, if the court would have ruled in favor of Brady’s ruling there could have been a chance that Brady’s circumstances would have turned out to be in his favor. Although when Brady took part in the criminal acts with Boblit he must have known there would have been negative consequences for his part in the robbery and murder of Brooks.
I believe the defendant's absence of sympathy for other people and unwillingness to understand and empathize with people who are different from him led to him unconsciously setting up the circumstances for his brother to be killed. I believe that this makes him a danger to others. So, jury as you make your decision on whether or not the defendant is guilty I ask that you all seriously analyze the behaviors of Adam Armstrong and realize that they are not normal and that he needs serious help. Thank
Although the prosecution claims he is guilty they are wrong because Mr. Alfaro is a exterminator who was seen around Mr. Adams drink, Mr. Mack had a motive to kill, and Mrs. Reid was a close relative and believed she would inherit his wealth. The strongest reason in this case is that Mr. Alfaro is an exterminator who deals with rat poison and was seen pouring Mr. Adams a drink 5 minutes before he died. It was noted that the rat poison found in Mr. Adams drink was only accessible for exterminators and Mr. Alfaro was an exterminator. In addition, the police officer and the coroner determined that the cause of death was rat poison.
Plus, she also tried to buy poison, but thankfully failed. Was that almost the way she was going to murder? Lizzie had an argument with her parents, just one week before the murders and chose to stay in a separate home for four days. Adding on to having an argument, just a few days before the murders, Lizzie tried to buy toxins. Although the police could not present the purchasing in the trial and the idea that all families have frenzied arguments, Lizzie definitely is guilty.
In this case there was no witnesses at all and the prosecution relies on assumptions rather than facts. Mrs. Wright is being accused unjustly due to prejudice and lack of investigation. When Mr. Hale went in the morning to convince Mr. Wright
The reasons and evidence all conclude that Mr. Bennet did not murder Mr. Adams. Mr. Alfaro is an exterminator and the rat poison is only available to exterminators, Mrs. Reid thought if Mr. Adams died then she would have all the money he owned and his new mansion, and Mr. Adams could have killed himself because of his bad eyesight. I urge you to find that the defendant, Mr. Bennet, should be found not
Should someone be convicted of murder even if they did it to protect themselves and their friends or should they remain guilty? In the fictional novel The Outsiders written by S.E. Hinton there are two main rival gangs, The Socs and The Greasers. One night Johnny Cade and Ponyboy Curtis were at a park Far East and the socs came and they fought. While they were fighting Johnny took a 6 inch switchblade and stabbed Bob in the back. This resulted o in the death of Bob.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you are here because one person in this courtroom decided to take law into her own hands. The defendant, Mrs. Dominique Stephens, murdered the man that she vowed to love. This sole act by the defendant is violation of all morals and her husband’s right to live. Afterwards, she even felt guilty about this violation of justice and called the cops on herself, and she later signed a written statement stating that she is guilty of the murder of Mr. Donovan Stephens. Then the defendant later recanted this statement and said that she only killed Mr. Stephens in self defense.
The jury’s final decision of not guilty in the case of murder in the first degree in Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose was just and a good reflection of our justice system. In act 2 page 28 Juror 8 questions if the old man that has had 2 strokes and said that heard the murder take place and the kid running down the stairs just a few seconds after he heard the body drop, could get to the door on time to see the kid running down the stairs. He argues against the validity of the old man’s testimony when he says, “His bed was at the window. It's (looking closer) twelve feet from his bed to the bedroom door. The length of the hall is forty-three feet, six inches.
The judge declares the “Murder in the first degree—premeditated homicide—is the most serious charge tried in our criminal courts. One man is dead. The life of another is at stake. If there is a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused … then you must declare him not guilty. If, however, there is no reasonable doubt, then he must be found guilty.