Trial- Assignment

What aspects of the trial procedures were you already familiar with?
Before reading this transcript I was familiar with how opening statements of the prosecution and defense try to tell the jury what they believe and it also tells them about the different aspects of the case that each side will talk about and explain. I am also familiar with how the defense and prosecution call their experts. They need to make sure that the experts that they call to testify on their behalf of the case will help their case and not harm to their case.
I was also familiar with cross-examination I am familiar with the way that both side can object to certain things said or done by the other side, and this is when the Judge can intervene.

What aspects of the trial procedures were new to you, or you learned something about?
The aspect of the trial that were new to me is the evidence of the psychological aspects of the defendant at the time of the murder. It was a very interesting aspect of the trial to see how the defense depicted Mr. Sandoval as innocent in the fact that he was not in the right mind at the time of the murder. This is a very interesting aspect to prove and very difficult to prove to a jury, since they have to interpret all of the evidence shown to prove this point.

What surprised you most about this trial?
What surprised me about this trial was the fact that they had a clear cut conviction and even a confession from Robert Sandoval and yet they had to go to trial. I thought it was surprising that the only reason they were taking this case to trial was to figure out what was going through his head when he stabbed Mr. Petello on Thanksgiving Evening after finding out that his van had been shot that evening. Another thing that surprised me about this trial was the fact that Mr. Sandoval did not remember grabbing the knife and stabbing Mr. Petello, at least this is what was told when he was on the stand for the defense. But, when Mr. Hutchens was first called as a witness for the prosecution and he stated that he saw Mr. Sandoval go and grab the carving knife from the kitchen and stab Mr. Petello. The last surprising thing about this trial was the fact that Mr. Sandoval waited for the police to arrive on scene, he did not run or leave the scene like most people do.

What do you think would be going through the minds of the jurors as they sat there and listened to this trial?
I think what would be going through the minds of the jurors as they sat and listened to this trial was the fact that is Mr. Hutchens a good witness, even though he was under the influence of alcohol and hash. Also, another thing that would be going through their minds is how the behavior of Mr. Sandoval could have been influenced by the hash and alcohol on the night of the murder, was he really in his right mind that night, and what situations lead up to the murder that could have influenced his behavior?

What psychological terms or factors are operating in the defendant?
Psychological terms or factors that are operating in the defendant are recollection, he was a covable party, motivated forgetting, repression, retrograde (he does not know what went on after he entered the house to the point after he stabbed Mr. Petello), high stress may have hurt his memory of what really happened the night of the murder, memory evidence, and confession evidence.

What psychological terms or factors are operating in the jurors?
Psychological terms or factors that are operating in the jurors are confidence and accuracy of testimonies; evaluating the reliability and the accuracy of eyewitness evidence. The jurors also have the factors of visible, memory, and confession evidence. They also have the factors of taking in all of the evidence that is shown by both the prosecution and defense and making the decision of whether the correct procedure was used to collect the information and if the information is reliable and correct.

What pieces of evidence are not disputed (ie, both sides, prosecution and defense agree to them)?
Pieces of evidence that were not disputed by both sides were the chain saw, the carving knife, and the fact that Robert Sandoval’s van did in fact have holes in it from gun shots, and that 7 people who were at the Thanksgiving dinner were high on hash and went to the bar to drink.

What pieces of evidence are in dispute (ie., the prosecution or defense disagree on some point)?
One piece of evidence that is in dispute is the psychological aspects of the defendant, Mr. Sandoval. Another piece of evidence in dispute is the credibility of Mr. Hutchens as a witness for the prosecution, since he was under the influence of hash and alcohol at the time of the incident. The credibility of statements and testimonies from Officer Gasman and John McClain are also in dispute between the prosecution and defense.

Describe how the prosecution OR the defense used the evidence to craft a story to support their viewpoint.
The defense use the evidence of the testimonies of Officer Gasman, John McClain, and Glenn Hutchens. They attack the testimonies of each person and try to show that they are not credible witnesses. John McClain and Glenn Hutchens were at the house of the stabbing but both were under the influence of drugs and alcohol during the time of the attack. Also, the defense showed evidence that officers waited at least 19 hours until he talked to Mr. McClain. This may have allowed John McClain to talk to other people to get their story straight, which is the point of the defense to show that all of the statements are not 100% creditable. Also, both men denied shooting the van, but when evidence was shown that proves different both men stated that “they may have shot the van, but did not do it intentionally.” As the evidence of Officer Gasman’s testimony, the defense depicted that he could not tell the jury what happened in the case and look them straight in the eyes. The defense depicted this as Officer Gasman having something to hide from the jury that may harm his career.

At this point, as a potential juror, which way are you leaning (guilty or not guilty) and why? This is predeliberation, so do not focus on or respond to other people's comments (for a later assignment, you will deliberate with the other 'jurors' in the class).
At this point I am leaning toward guilty. This is for the fact that the defendant did indeed leave the premises, get into his van went to his home and picked up his chainsaw. Once he did this, he went back to the house and threatened to use the chainsaw in order to cut up the furniture. When his chainsaw failed to start, he went inside the home in order to talk out the differences and try to resolve the problem. He did not have any evidence of self-defense and the night ended in the stabbing and death of Mr. Petello. I do not believe that anyone could leave a situation, drive back to their home and grab a chainsaw, and then drive back to the house that all of the confrontation happened without the thought of someone getting hurt or getting revenge.

I was already familiar with the trial proceedings. I've witnessed a handful of trials and hearings so I already knew the order of events at a trial, the opening statements, the direct and cross-examination of the witnesses and defendant, and the closing arguments by each side.

I was surprised by the lack of credible supporting evidence presented by the prosecution. The defense seemed more knowledgable, but the prosecution should have anticipated that.

I think the jurors must have been somewhat torn between who to believe. It may have been different for them to see the body language of the witnesses and the defendant, though. Sometimes people are obvious liars with their body language and don't even know it.

Some psychological terms or factors affecting the defendant would be memory and retrograde, he didn't remember part of the night of the murder-the part where he stabbed Mr. Petello. The high stress level of the situation may have affected his memory.

Some psychological terms or factors affecting the jurors would be the fact that all people at the crime scene were intoxicated either by alcohol or the hash, or both, so how accurate is their memory. Again the high stress level of the situation would affect their memory, so how credible are the witnesses and the defendant. Can the jurors believe any of the witnesses or the defendant?

Some pieces of evidence that were not disputed were the knife, the bullet holes in the side of the van that came from the rifle in the home, the chainsaw,the intoxication of the people involved, and the violence-prone people involved.

Some pieces of evidence disputed were the location in the home of the stabbing, the location of the knife in the home, the chainsaw in the van or at Sandoval's home, the type of wound and what caused that type of wound, and Sandoval's state of mind.

The defense said that the blood was mainly around the front door, not the fireplace, indicating that the stabbing happened in the doorway, so it must have been self-defense when Sandoval was trying to leave. The defense said the dishes had been left out in the living room, so the knife was probably within reach and Petello probably had the log in his hand blocking the doorway. Mr. Sandoval didn't leave after he realized he stabbed Mr. Petello, and he only stabbed him once, and he didn't try to flee. So he must have felt remorse for what he had done.

As of right now, I am probably leaning toward 'not guilty' because the prosecution had too many holes in their argument that should have been addressed. I would need more time to think about it, though.

What aspects of the trial procedures were you already familiar with?
I’m pretty familiar with the concepts of a prosecutor and the defense; I also understand the process of examining witnesses by both parties. The whole trial seemed pretty normal to me. The TV shows are fairly accurate.
What aspects of the trial procedures were new to you, or you learned something about?
Most of this trial seemed pretty accurate to the knowledge I had previously. I think the biggest thing I learned was how the lawyers seem more concerned with portraying the witnesses negatively, rather than focusing on the facts.
What surprised you most about this trial?
Although I am just reading it, the Lawyers seem sarcastic. It feels unprofessional to me; however, I’m sure it has something to do with catching the Jury’s attention. It also seems like the focus on trying to portray the witnesses who are against them as bad people, as opposed to simply debating the facts.
What do you think would be going through the minds of the jurors as they sat there and listened to this trial?
Well, in my mind, I was thinking “Holy cow, are these people serious? Let’s just throw everybody in jail.” They have to be thinking about whom they think is more honest. Whose testimony they should believe? Which is pretty difficult?
What psychological terms or factors are operating in the defendant?
He definitely has to deal with his memory being influenced by different substances. He is also interested in portraying himself in the most positive light.
What psychological terms or factors are operating in the jurors?
The have to be aware of the motives of all the witnesses. They also need to be aware of the reliability of witness testimony, and how their memories can be influence by motives and various substances.
What pieces of evidence are not disputed (i.e., sides, prosecution and defense agree to them)?
They agree that the man was stabbed, and that Sandoval was the one who did it. Everyone had been drinking at the time. There was also a van and a chainsaw present. The van was also shot.
What pieces of evidence are in dispute (i.e., the prosecution or defense disagree on some point)?
They disagree on why he stabbed him. The motivation for the witnesses is also in disagreement. Also, when the van was shot and why.
Describe how the prosecution OR the defense used the evidence to craft a story to support their viewpoint.
I really like the defense argument more. They tried to discredit the witnesses and I thought that they cultivated a story that seemed more likely. They use the angle of the stabbing to explain the motivation. They really go after the witnesses and the officer, and show how there was some inconsistencies between the stories and opportunities for a story to be conjured up. They really try to use the evidence to make it seem like it is too much to convict the defendant, that there is not enough hard information for it.
At this point, as a potential juror, which way are you leaning (guilty or not guilty) and why? This is predeliberation, so do not focus on or respond to other people's comments (for a later assignment, you will deliberate with the other 'jurors' in the class).
Not guilty. Although I really think everyone here should just be thrown into jail, they all seem a little ridiculous.

• What aspects of the trial procedures were you already familiar with?

When I first opened this document I saw it was 31 pages and the “oh gosh, this is going to take years to read” thought flashed across my mind. But as I read I realized how quickly it goes. Interviewing witnesses is a very dramatic and entertaining thing. I can understand why T.V. shows would focus on these types of things. This transcript was very interesting to read. The procedures taking place I had, for the most part, a good idea of how things went. I would say this was due completely to T.V. shows. Each sides have their opening statements, then call witnesses in which both sides have the opportunity to question them, and then come the closing statements.

• What aspects of the trial procedures were new to you, or you learned something about?

For the most part I was really familiar with how a case would go. One thing I was quite surprised with was when a person was getting questioned by the opposite side, they were extremely quick to say things like “I don’t know.” “I don’t remember.” “To the best of my knowledge.” With sayings like these, we can tell that the witnesses are trained by the lawyers defending them or a certain side. I was wondering why the lawyers use the many, somewhat sneaky tactics, while questioning witnesses. This is because both sides are trained and for the most part know what they are doing. I would honestly be scared to testify in a case, for the simple fact that I feel like some lawyers can get you to say about anything.

• What surprised you most about this trial?

I was overwhelmed by how dramatic the questioning of the witnesses truly is. Lawyers get down right personal with the witnesses. They use clever tricks even. One point that sticks out in my head is when the defense lawyer actually calls down Mr. Hutchens. The defense starts questioning him about actually getting in the face of Sandoval. It appeared that the defense tried to use the excuse of showing a general height different to almost attempting to intimidate the witness or cause some sort of emotional rise out of him by almost getting in his face. The prosecution quickly objects this tactic, and Mr. Hutchens sits back down. When talking about the cases on T.V. shows you except high drama, but I was very surprised at how daramatic this case was itself. Questioning a witness is done in an extremely strategic and organized manner. I can’t imagine the hours that go into preparing to question a witness, and then on the opposite end of the spectrum, preparing your witness to deal with the kinds of questions they will be asked. Because the testimonies of eye witness are very heavily weighted usually on the outcome of the jury, one can see why picking your witnesses is of dire importance to a trial.

• What do you think would be going through the minds of the jurors as they sat there and listened to this trial?

I try to answer this questions thinking if I were to be part of that jury. Reading the transcript I try to see the courtroom and watch the story unfold in my head. I found myself picking apart every little thing anyone said. Down to the grammatical errors some of the witnesses would made. Because Mr. Hutchens said things like, “we was shootin” I find myself seeing him as less intelligent. I also found myself looking down on him because he had little to say except for, “No. That didn’t happen.” Mr. Sandoval then comes in and has long and descriptive statements about what happened. I feel like I started judging Mr. Hutchens because he seemed like he was hiding something. But this is not what I should be looking at. Instead of trying to figure these people out, I should be more heavily focused on the facts and evidence. As a juror I feel like getting emotionally involved would be the hardest thing to try and not do.

• What psychological terms or factors are operating in the defendant?

Psychological state – the state of Mr. Sandoval during the stabbing, this lack of memory
Social psychology – the group, and the 3 on 1 scenerio, the party atmosphere
Aggression – many of the men in this group seem to have very aggressive personality traits
Developmental – childhood’s attributing to the need and development of aggression
Racism – the many times that Sandoval is referred to a Mexican in a negative way
Revenge – the need for revenge is a powerful and driving motive in a person
Memory – remembering what happened on both sides, down to the memories of people getting contaminated (ex. John McClain getting interviewed 19 hours after the stabbing)

• What psychological terms or factors are operating in the jurors?

Discretion – choice to charge or not charge based on how they may be feeling, what they believe according to past events, what they believe in response to certain moral views and opinions
Social desirability – choosing the socially accepted verdict
Emotions – emotional responses toward the death of a man
Likeability – developing a likeability or a disliking for a certain witness
Prejudice – negative views toward person who supposedly did it

• What pieces of evidence are not disputed (ie, both sides, prosecution and defense agree to them)?

Mr. Sandoval’s van was shot at
A chainsaw was attempted to be started by Mr. Sandoval
The men were drinking/using hash
The men went to a bar for drinks, where a dispute happened over a 20 dollar bill
Sandoval stabbed Mr. Petello, leading to his death

• What pieces of evidence are in dispute (ie., the prosecution or defense disagree on some point)?

Where the men were standing during the stabbing
Words said between the men (a lot of men denying they said things that others heard)
Reason why Mr. Petello was stabbed
Where the Mr. Hutchen’s gun was
Who actually shot the van, and was it intentional
The whole stabbing if very sketchy. There isn’t a lot of facts and just a lot of witness testimony. Very different stories from Mr. Hutchens and Mr. Sandoval.

• Describe how the prosecution OR the defense used the evidence to craft a story to support their viewpoint.

I thought the defense did an amazing job. They shaped their case by first showing the jury how aggression these men were. It showed that the men were aggressive. It crafts a story to try and make Mr. Sandoval out to be the underdog. It depicts the situation as a 3 to 1 dispute. It shows he was outnumbered. It then went on to show the racial slurs made toward Mr. Sandoval during fits. It also makes a point of Mr. Sandoval basically telling his entire story, while Mr. Hutchen seemed to sit back and answer and say as little as possible. The defense depicts Sandoval as a type of victim who had his van shot at, was called racist things, and was outnumbered 3 to 1 when he tried to leave the house. Hearing this, along with the lack of facts from the prosecution would, in my opinion, leave the jury seeing Sandoval as more of a victim than a murderer.

• At this point, as a potential juror, which way are you leaning (guilty or not guilty) and why? This is predeliberation, so do not focus on or respond to other people's comments (for a later assignment, you will deliberate with the other 'jurors' in the class).

I have to go with the defense. The facts aren’t adding up to make it seem like Mr. Sandoval randomly flipped and stabbed someone. This seems like a dark situation where he was teamed up on, and got mad enough to try and leave the house. It appears to me that Mr. Petello got in his way, and he then stabbed him, using his only weapon. The prosecution didn’t have as many facts or strong arguments as I would have thought to see. I also saw Mr. Hutchen as a very weak witness. I think he helped the defense more than the prosecution by being on the stand.

What aspects of the trial procedures were you already familiar with?

I was familiar with the opening and closing arguments and the calling of witnesses. I knew the prosecution was able to set up their argument first and then the defense was able to give theirs. The prosecution calls the witnesses first and then the defense has the opportunity to cross-examinate the witnesses. Then vice versa, with the defense calling witnesses and prosecution cross-examinating the witness. I was also familiar with the prosecution and defense being able to object during questioning; however, this leads me into the second question....

What aspects of the trial procedures were new to you, or you learned something about?

I didn't realize that the objection process was so simple (or at least it appeared to be).

Prosecution: I’m going to object if this is a demonstration to show relative height than that is fine, but I don’t think it’s proper to cross examine the witness from 6 inches in front of his nose.

Judge: I agree

The prosection objected, the judge agreed, and the cross-examination carried on...it just seemed so quick and simple.

What surprised you most about this trial?

What surprised me most about the case was the sequence of events of the crime. There were so many witnesses and people involved at the scene that it was hard to generate a plausible story of what really happened. Everyone had their own account and everyone against the defense matched up their stories; however I still felt like vital information was missing. It didn't make sense that no one "remembered" or "didn't know" if shots were fired at the defendant's van. Even if you are drunk, events like shots being fired usually sober you up enough to the point where you realize what is going on. And if you are too drunk to remember, how is it possible to get shots so close together on the van? Also, most of the people involved at the scene were described as somewhat aggressive and short-tempered. It sounded like a lot of them liked to fight, so it is possible that anyone of them could be responsible for Mr. Petello's death. Which brings me to my most suspicious thoughts of...if there were so many people in the room when Mr. Sandoval was attacking the victim, why did no one do anything to help Mr. Petello or calm Sandoval down?

Also, if Mr. Sandoval admitted to killing Petello when the police arrived, why is he now trying to establish self-defense?

What do you think would be going through the minds of the jurors as they sat there and listened to this trial?

For me, it would sound like a drunk fest with no one having a clue what was going on or what happened. I would have suspicions that almost anyone at the scene crime could be a likely suspect. The sequence of events also seemed very jumbled from being at the house, being at the bar, and then the murder with a whole bunch of random events inbetween. Why would they have a gun out at Thanksgiving and be shooting at logs and lightposts? It just seems like a ridiculous party. If you are shooting at random items inside and outside the house while intoxicated you are just asking for trouble, especially with men with aggressive backgrounds.

What psychological terms or factors are operating in the defendant?

There would definitely be memory issues on the side of the defense, trying to remember how he ended up stabbing Petello. He probably also has haunting thoughts of potentially killing someone. He is also probably dealing with stress from the crime and now the trial.

What psychological terms or factors are operating in the jurors?

The jurors are probably trying to piece together the sequence of events at the crime. They are dealing with trust of whether or not they believe each witnesses testimony. They would also be dealing with the stress of possibly convicting an innocent man or letting a guilty murderer go free.

What pieces of evidence are not disputed (ie, both sides, prosecution and defense agree to them)?

Both the prosecution and the defense agree to where the crime occured. That the defense and the victim were drinking together earlier in the night celebrating Thanksgiving, shots were being at a log in the doorway and outside at lightposts, that Sandoval's van was also shot at. There were several fights throughout the night and most of the men there had a background of being involved in fights. They also agree on the murder weapon being a knife.

What pieces of evidence are in dispute (ie., the prosecution or defense disagree on some point)?

However, the prosecution and defense disagree on whether Sandoval was try to defend himself. The prosecution claims first degree murder, but the defense claims self-defense. They also disagree on whether or not Sandoval's van was intentionally shot at.

Describe how the prosecution OR the defense used the evidence to craft a story to support their viewpoint.

The prosecution tried to make it seem as though Sandoval waited to long to return to the home to claim self-defense. The prosecution also said that the knife was pushed in too deep into the victim and the wound was too great to be determined as self-defense. To them, it seemed more intentional. The defense, claimed that the knife was pushed in at an angle, which could be from an accidental swipe, and that it only went in 3-4 inches yet it was 7-8 inches long; therefore, it would not have been first degree murder. The defense also tried to make the police officer's report seem false because it relied on his memory and he would have reason to make some of it up for credibility. In addition, the prosecution claimed that the murder took place by the fireplace away from the door. The defense said that the murder happened closer to the door, and Sandoval may have felt trapped trying to get out, which caused the stabbing in self-defense.

At this point, as a potential juror, which way are you leaning (guilty or not guilty) and why? This is predeliberation, so do not focus on or respond to other people's comments (for a later assignment, you will deliberate with the other 'jurors' in the class).

I am leaning towards not guilty. I feel that the sequence of events do not match up with everyone's stories and that more vital evidence is needed to prove Sandoval's guilt. Most of the memories were tainted from being under the influence, and most people don't have a clear account of what actually happened that Thanksgiving night. To me, it sounds like Sandoval returned to get his van fixed, not to intentionally kill Petello. With everyone being drunk and having aggressive backgrounds, I think more people could have been responsible for Petello's death than solely Sandoval. Other people may have also provoked Sandoval to act out and stab Petello. I do not think it was first degree murder and that reasonable doubt is at play.

What aspects of the trial procedures were you already familiar with?
I was pretty familier with most of the trial procedures including cross examination of the witnesses, retireration of the witnesses statements so that the jury can remember main points, the lawyers having to ask the judge before doing anything showed order in the courtroom.

What aspects of the trial procedures were new to you, or you learned something about?
The thing that i found interesting or new is when one of the lawyers acutally asked the witness to get up so that he can use him as a prop in the story that he was trying to get across that the witness seems to not remember with the bar setting altercation.

What surprised you most about this trial?
What surprised me the most was that the defendent actually testifed!!! i mean his story sort of lines up with the others but its so badly presented that it seemed to me that he was coached very well on how to present some parts but others he seem like he was still high and didnt know what was going on.. the example being the knife and how it got in his hands and what happened after that.

What do you think would be going through the minds of the jurors as they sat there and listened to this trial?
I would guess they would be having a very hard time in keeping the facts straight since the same story is told so differently with major and minor deatils eaither missing or completly different.

What psychological terms or factors are operating in the defendant?
Definetly selective amnesia, memory failure to recall, eyewitness relieabilty due to his influenced state of mind when all this happened it is hard to trust his view point.

What psychological terms or factors are operating in the jurors?
group think based on most people not being sure of what is really going on so whoever seems to have the best idea is the one to go with.

What pieces of evidence are not disputed (ie, both sides, prosecution and defense agree to them)?
There was a dinner with 7 people, hash was smoked, lots of booze was drank, there was a gun, the van with holes in it, the chainsaw.

What pieces of evidence are in dispute (ie., the prosecution or defense disagree on some point)?
where the knife was, the loctaion of the log, the 20 dollar bill argument, location of the gun, the agressor and the victim.

Describe how the prosecution OR the defense used the evidence to craft a story to support their viewpoint.
Both the defense and prosecution used the knife and murder but the defense put up a better argument with what happened with that knife and that it is more likely that it was accidental of self defense with the murder instead of a execution style that the prosecution tried to get across.

At this point, as a potential juror, which way are you leaning (guilty or not guilty) and why? This is predeliberation, so do not focus on or respond to other people's comments (for a later assignment, you will deliberate with the other 'jurors' in the class).
I am definetly leaniing toward the not guilty of first degree murder because the defense puts up such a good argument with the knife situation and the porsectuions story of it just sort of happening and mr.sandoval walking up to mr.p and stabing him seems very unlikeyly while the rest of the people sat around.

What aspects of the trial procedures were you already familiar with?

Interrogation, eyewitness testimonies, prosecution and defense, recording everything, opening/closing statements, objections

What aspects of the trial procedures were new to you, or you learned something about?

I learned that the prosecution and defense teams can ask pretty much anything they want even if it’s a leading question

What surprised you most about this trial?

The thing I was most surprised about was how both teams asked the same questions more than once. They also asked leading questions to suggest things had happened or been said when they hadn’t, just to get certain answers. I think that’s very unfair.

What do you think would be going through the minds of the jurors as they sat there and listened to this trial?

If I was a juror, I would be very confused throughout the whole trial. Even after reading everything, I’m still not sure if I think Mr. Sandoval is guilty or innocent of homicide. I would have to take a lot of notes and pay close attention

What psychological terms or factors are operating in the defendant?

Memory, social psychology – discrimination against Sandoval, mindlessness, personal distress, motivation

What psychological terms or factors are operating in the jurors?

Learning, memory (to remember everything being said), empathy/sympathy, values, motivation

What pieces of evidence are not disputed (ie, both sides, prosecution and defense agree to them)?

The fact that everyone was drinking and violent, that a chainsaw was involved, that Mr. Sandoval’s van was shot more than once, that the guests at thanksgiving dinner were shooting outside of the home, that a carving knife was used to murder Sandoval, that there had almost been a fight outside of the bar

What pieces of evidence are in dispute (ie., the prosecution or defense disagree on some point)?

That the guests at the dinner purposely shot the van, that Hutchens and Sandoval had argued about the eviction notice, that Sandoval had come back with the intent to kill, where Petello was standing when he was stabbed, if Sandoval stabbed Petello out of self-defense or on purpose, if Hutchens had a bigger role to play

Describe how the prosecution OR the defense used the evidence to craft a story to support their viewpoint.

The defense was trying to make Hutchens seem like the bad guy and that he was instigating Sandoval before the stabbing, which would make Sandoval seem like he was only acting in self-defense when he stabbed Petello. The defense asked leading questions to Sandoval like “Did there come a time where he said something to you to the effect of “I’ll get you, you dirty Mexican”?” The defense also tried to make everyone seem violent by asking multiple times if certain people were violent and if fights had occurred when there had been no previous statements about certain fights.

At this point, as a potential juror, which way are you leaning (guilty or not guilty) and why? This is predeliberation, so do not focus on or respond to other people's comments (for a later assignment, you will deliberate with the other 'jurors' in the class).

I think I’m leading more towards Sandoval being not guilty of first degree murder. The most compelling evidence to me is how there was no blood found by the fire place, which is where the prosecution said Petello was standing when he was stabbed. Unless Petello jumped to the door way immediately after he was stabbed, there would be a substantial amount of blood at the fireplace considering the stab wound. This evidence suggests that Petello may have been blocking Sandoval from being able to leave the house when he felt threatened, therefore acting in self defense.

What aspects of the trial procedures were you already familiar with?
I was already familiar with the fact that there are opening and closing statements for both sides, cross examinations, presenting evidence, and direct examination.

What aspects of the trial procedures were new to you, or you learned something about?
A new thing to me was how many times a person is allowed to ask a question and from how I read it, one of the witnesses got off the stand to point out on a map, I didn’t know that they were allowed to do that.

What surprised you most about this trial?
I would say I was most surprised by just the whole case. It seems totally bizarre and pointless for something to escalate into this. I also was surprised by the lack of persuasiveness of the prosecution. The man was trying to bring a chain saw into their house… isn’t that a bit crazy?!

What do you think would be going through the minds of the jurors as they sat there and listened to this trial?
I would be wondering to myself why if Mr. Hutchens was such a violent drunk didn’t he do anything about his friend being stabbed. I would also be questioning how if you heard a chain saw, why you wouldn’t be a little more apt to maybe lock your door. I’d wonder why they were all still hanging out if they clearly can’t get a long and finally I’d wonder why the prosecution hadn’t educated Mr. Hutchens a bit more on how to answer questions and speak proper grammar.

What psychological terms or factors are operating in the defendant?
I would say the fact that he killed someone would definitely be weighing down on him. The fact that he is standing trial for something that he doesn’t have a clear memory of, and just the fact that he is on trial.

What psychological terms or factors are operating in the jurors?
The fact that they are responsible for how the defendant will spend the rest of his life. Then they have to deal with the actual stress of the trial and making sure they are hearing and understanding everything.

What pieces of evidence are not disputed (ie, both sides, prosecution and defense agree to them)?
The fact that Mr. Sandoval stabbed Mr. Petello. The men were under the influence. Mr. Sandoval tried to bring a chain saw into their residence, but it wouldn’t start. There was a dispute at the bar over money. The gun had been shot.

What pieces of evidence are in dispute (ie., the prosecution or defense disagree on some point)?
Whether the van was shot intentionally. Why Mr. Petello got stabbed. The location of the knife. The location of the gun. Whether Mr. Sandoval stopped at his house before coming back or not. How the stabbing occurred and it’s intent. What type of bullet shots hit the van.

Describe how the prosecution OR the defense used the evidence to craft a story to support their viewpoint.
I’d say the defense had the best story. They went back and used priors of the other men. Pointing out how aggressive Mr. Hutchens was and the history he had with Mr. Sandoval. They point out the previous fight at the bar where it was three on one, and then return to this theory when the issue of the positioning of the log is blocking the entrance and how the house is in disarray so the knife could’ve easily been within reach for a “defensive” move. They point out how the blood is mainly on the door frame as if Mr. Sandoval were trying to leave and not attack. They also go on to discredit the witnesses from the phone call made to the police and even the police by saying it would make their record better by having a conviction.

At this point, as a potential juror, which way are you leaning (guilty or not guilty) and why? This is predeliberation, so do not focus on or respond to other people's comments (for a later assignment, you will deliberate with the other 'jurors' in the class).
I myself would have to go with a not guilty charge as the prosecutions case seemed very weak to me and not convincing. I would want this man charged with something though, he should not go unpunished for killing a man, because I am not completely positive it was self defense.

What aspects of the trial procedures were you already familiar with?
* I was already familiar with the testifying and cross-examining of the witness, and the opening and closing statements. I knew that they asked the witnesses about their statements they made to the police at the time of the crime to see if their are any differences between the statements and their testimony.

What aspects of the trial procedures were new to you, or you learned something about?
* I thought it was weird that the lawyer could actually make the witness get up and confront him like they were in the bar. It was also interesting that the judge told the lawyer to cut it out and let the witness sit back down.

What surprised you most about this trial?
* That part with the lawyer confronting the witness surprised me.

What do you think would be going through the minds of the jurors as they sat there and listened to this trial?
* I think they would be listening to the stories to get a general timeline of what happened. I would think that they'd be paying attention to the witnesses and the defendant, like how they act while they're testifying and how they react to being cross-examined, and just getting a sense of their personalities overall. They would also be trying to match up the different stories, and figuring out which pieces of the stories are missing or unclear based on who was testifying.

What psychological terms or factors are operating in the defendant?
* Memory, aggression, stress, racism, his state of mind at the time of the crime

What psychological terms or factors are operating in the jurors?
* Stress, social psycology

What pieces of evidence are not disputed (ie, both sides, prosecution and defense agree to them)?
* They agree that there was a gun in the house and they were shooting at logs that day. They agree that they smoked hash, ate dinner, and went to the bar. They agree that there were bullet holes in Sandoval's van, he went back to the house and couldn't get his chainsaw to start.

What pieces of evidence are in dispute (ie., the prosecution or defense disagree on some point)?
* Location of the knife and gun, and why Sandoval went back to the house.

Describe how the prosecution OR the defense used the evidence to craft a story to support their viewpoint.
* I think the prosecution made it seem like Sandoval was an angry drunk man hanging out with other angry drunk men and that they were all just ready to fight and it went too far.

At this point, as a potential juror, which way are you leaning (guilty or not guilty) and why?
* I'm leaning toward not guilty. Mostly this is because some parts of the story don't make much sense and the witnesses and defendant's stories don't really seem to flow together- like what Sandoval was doing back at the house, and their argument at the bar. There is enough reasonable doubt, for me, to not find him guilty.

*What procedures of the trial were you already familiar with?
I was familiar with the trail procedure. The testimony of both the defense witnesses and then the cross-examination of the other attorney. I was familiar with the ability of the attorneys having the ability to object in order to protect the people testifying.
*What aspects of the trial procedures were new to you, or you learned something about?
Im pretty familiar with the activities in the courtroom so none of it was really new to me. I would like to learn more about the ways the attorneys prepare for cases and also what the judge thinks about the testimonies that are at hand and how he would of decided the case if it was a bench trial.
*What surprised you the most about this trial?
I thought it was surprising that only two people testified. I thought that other witnesses would have been beneficial to the attorneys, judge, and jury.
*What do you think would be going through the minds of the jurors as they sat there and listened to this trial?
I would hope that the jurors were trying to picture the setting and evaluate the testimony given to determine the actual events and conclude what were the actual motives and what actually happened during that day and night.
*What psychological terms or factors are operating in the defendant?
I think a big factor that was evident was the witness reliability. I think that the witnesses were heavily under the influence of alcohol and hash, so the testimony given could of easily been flaud.
*What psychological terms or factors are operating in the jurors?
I think the main thing going on is trying to determine who is telling the truth by determining what story is more believable. The jury has a number of psychological influences to deal with. The pressure to be right, the people giving testimony that is questionable because the people were highly intoxicated, and differing views from the other jurors.
*What pieces of evidence are not disputed (ie, both sides, prosecution and defense agree to them)?
The chainsaw being at the scene is not in question, they both agree that it was there. The alcohol, hash were agreed upon. The rifle and the fact that they were shooting the weapon. The whereabouts of the group of people as far as being at the house and the bar.
*What pieces of evidence are in dispute (ie., the prosecution or defense disagree on some point)?
The actions of the defendant after he left the house is in dispute. (car trouble or not) Also his intent for returning to the house. If the group was arguing the whole night jokingly or if they really had problems with each other.
*Describe how the prosecution OR the defense used the evidence to craft a story to support their viewpoint.
The prosecution made it look like everyone in the house was a violent person and blamed Mr. Sandoval for making the poor decision to hang out with them especially when there was hash and alcohol involved. While the defense made the claim that the people were violent and that was the reason that Mr. Sandavol had to use the force in which he did and it was not premeditated.
*At this point, as a potential juror, which way are you leaning (guilty or not guilty) and why? This is predeliberation, so do not focus on or respond to other people's comments (for a later assignment, you will deliberate with the other 'jurors' in the class).
*At this point I am leaning toward guilty because Mr. Sandoval left the house and he could have stayed home and dealt with the matter in the morning and the altercation would not have happened. It seem to me that he was so mad about the bullet wholes he went back to get revenge rather then set up a deal so that they will take car of the damage to the vehicle. It seems to me that since everyone in the house was so drunk and Mr. Sandoval was aware of this and that they were violent people that would not back down, it would of been a better decision for him to stay home, unless he had revenge on his mind.

I was already familiar with the repetition of questions, evidence having to be brought out to be supported, calling up witnessess and having them be questioned by both the defese and the prosecuter.

New to me were how close you can cross examine your witness, how the defense was giving out a leading question but then the judge sustained it. How an attorney can try to put statements in the questioning that have not ever been said just to either trick the witness or get them to confess.

What surprised me the most was the closing argument on the side of the defense. Once the defense spoke the whole story and how Arnold's death came about made sense. It was all planned out by three individuals and once police officer messed up when it came to his memory and taking sketchy notes.

The Jurors at first would be thinking that yea Mr. Sandoval had the right to be angry when he was being hasseled by three people at once and no one to stand up for him. On the other hand that does not justify Mr. Petello's friend. Towards the end they must have found Mr. Sandoval not guilty, after the defense attorney's closing argument.

The defendant's memory was not that great when it came time to pin-point out Mr. Petello's death. He can recall everything else not perfectly, because again it's mainly memory that is being used, but close enough, I'm guessing because those scenes that he described were not calme but yet not shocking either.

First the Jurors take in the story of the prosecutor, there their mind already had a set. There are witnesses and evidence and claims that are all against Mr. Sandoval in the beginning, the defense does a good job by minimizing the mind set of what the jurors had of Mr. Sandoval by questioning the witnesses. I believe that in the end the Jurors changed their minds and sided with the defense.

The pieces of evidence that are not disputed was that Mr. Sandoval's van was shot at, there was drinking of alcoholic beverages and hash, there was a rifle and a gun involved and some arguments and fighting were involved and the death of Mr. Potello.

The evidence that was disputed was the log that was supposedly near the fireplace but ended up being near the front door. Who really did kill Mr. Potello? How it happened? And who was actually provoking who and how?

The defense used evidence of the sketchy policeman, Gasman's, notes, how he mixed up on who said what, and how he did not put what is considered "important facts down" such as the chanisaw incident. How Mr. Hutchens had mad a phone call to his friend Mr. McClain, who was not questioned by police until after 19 hours later, giving them enough time to get their story straight. And a phone call that was placed around 11:41.

I believe Mr. Sandoval is not guilty because he was out numbered, the police took bad notes, the defenses closing argument, and also but there were racial comments involved, so I believe that counts for something.

What aspects of the trial procedures were you already familiar with?

I was familiar with a lot of the trail procedures through watching movies, TV shows and actual court hearings on TV. I knew about the opening states and how both sides talk about the different aspect of the case that they are going to focus on and prove. They also tell the jurors how they should vote. I knew how both sides called witnesses to the stand, and how the basic line of questioning is done. I also knew about cross examining the witness. Sometimes during the cross examination the witness can do more harm than good and that is not watch the side that called the witness wants. I know that lawyers can only do certain things and they can object to what the other lawyer is doing. I understand that, but I don’t know all the little details about what they can and can’t do and what they can object to. I am also familiar with the closing statements and how both sides restate certain ideas and try one last time to convince the jury to vote their way.

What aspects of the trial procedures were new to you, or you learned something about?
I knew all the aspects of the trail, but I learned about the details of the trail procedures. It was interesting to hear how the defense and the prosecution both portrayed Mr. Sandoval. It was also interesting to hear Mr. Hutchens and Mr. Sandoval’s side of the story. I learned about the actual line of questioning with the witnesses and how some question can be leading or some line of questioning is not allowed. Over all I just learned more about the trial procedures.

What surprised you most about this trial?
Is that they knew the Mr. Sandoval committed the crime, but they were still at trial. It just surprises me that the only reason that the case went to trail was to see what was going on in Mr. Sandoval’s mind when he committed the crime or in other words what was his state of mind at the time of the crime. It surprised me that they didn’t call the other people at the party as witnesses to testify to the events leading up to the stabbing. I’m surprised they didn’t have an expert witness to testify about Mr. Sandoval not remembering certain parts of the night. An expert witness could have helped the jurors decide if Mr. Sandoval is lying about not remember or if he can actually forget certain events. Another thing that surprised me is that Mr. Sandoval couldn’t recall some aspects of that day. He didn’t remember grabbing the knife or stabbing Mr. Petello.

What do you think would be going through the minds of the jurors as they sat there and listened to this trial?
I think they would be thinking who is lying about the events of the night, Mr. Hutchens or Mr. Sandoval. They would also be thinking, is either one of these people good witness, since they both stated they were intoxicated that night. The jurors would be thinking about if it’s possible that Mr. Sandoval doesn’t remember stabbing Mr. Petello and if he was in his right state of mind when he committed the crime. The main thing that would be going through their mind is if Mr. Sandoval should be held responsible for the stabbing of Mr. Petello.

What psychological terms or factors are operating in the defendant?
Some psychological terms that are operating is repression, did he just put that memory somewhere deep in his mind where he can’t retrieve it. Retrograde amnesia, did he just totally forget about grabbing the knife and stabbing Mr. Petello. Memory evidence, he had been drinking and smoking harsh so his memory might not be that good. Confession evidence was he cohered or did anything influence his confession. He also could have “forgotten” grabbing the knife to get him off of the charges or to get a lighter sentence.

What psychological terms or factors are operating in the jurors?
The psychological terms or factors are finding out if the eyewitness testimony is accurate and reliable. The jurors have some physical evidence (knife and gun), they have memory evidence by the parties that were at the scene, and they have confession evidence by Mr. Sandoval. The jurors have to sort through all the evidence and decide what they believe and what they don’t believe. They have to decide if anything was done wrong while collecting evidence or getting statements that could have an impact of the trial. They have to use their own knowledge and the information given to them and try to short out the conflicting things.

What pieces of evidence are not disputed (ie, both sides, prosecution and defense agree to them)?
That everyone had been drinking and they had gone to the bar. That Mr. Sandoval lost a 20 dollar bill at the bar. That Mr. Sandoval had evicted Mr. Hutchens from an apartment. That Mr. Sandoval’s truck had been shot. That Mr. Sandoval came to the house with a chainsaw. The craving knife in Mr. Hutchens home was used to kill Mr. Petello. That Mr. Sandoval stabbed Mr. Petello. The last thing is, the number of people that were at the Thanksgiving dinner.

What pieces of evidence are in dispute (ie., the prosecution or defense disagree on some point)?
One thing that is disputed is the officer’s testimony and John McClain’s testimony. Also the specific actions and words of that day are disputed between the defense and prosecution. The state of mind that Mr. Sandoval was in when he stabbed Mr. Petello and if he committed the crime in self defense. Another thing that is disputed between the two parties is the shooting of the van. They both agree that the van was shoot, but they disagree on who did it.

Describe how the prosecution OR the defense used the evidence to craft a story to support their viewpoint.
The defense relied on the testimonies of the officer, Mr. McClain and Mr. Hutchens and tried to paint the picture that these individuals were not credible witnesses. Both Mr. McClain and Mr. Hutchens had been drinking and smoking harsh, so how much did they really remember. Mr. McClain had plenty of time to figure out his story and to talk with Mr. Hutchens before he was questioned by officers. The defense painted Officer Gasman has a person who had something to hide while the on the witness stand. They painted him as a guy who had other reasons for lying about the case and how he did a half ass job during the investigation. During the time that Mr. Hutchens was on the stand he started to say that it was possible that he his is van. When asked if he shot the van, Mr. Hutchens would reply no and then later he said he made have shot the van, but it was don’t done intentionally. They crafted the evidence around how Mr. Sandoval felt his life was in danger and committed the crime in self defense.

At this point, as a potential juror, which way are you leaning (guilty or not guilty) and why?
I am leaning towards guilty. I believe that Mr. Sandoval was in his right state of mind when he committed the crime. His judgment had have been impaired between the alcohol and anger, but that does not give him the right to stab another human. He left the house and then came back which told me he knew what he was doing. He came to the house with a chainsaw, which to me said that he wanted to get payback for his van. Mr. Sandoval was very upset over his van and he wanted the people responsible to pay for what they did. Mr. Sandoval might not have planned to hurt anyone physically, and the grabbing of the knife and the stabbing could have been a spur of the moment thing. Mr. Sandoval was intent on getting revenge and I don’t believe his life was threatened to the point where he needed to defend himself. If he felt that his life was threatened he could have left the house and then if they came after him and that would be another story. I just don’t feel there is enough evidence to prove self defense.

What psychological terms or factors are operating in the defendant?
There were a lot of psychological terms and factors operating in the defendant. The use of alcohol would have been a large factor in contributing to his actions, although I don’t feel that the hash usage had anything to do with it. Social psychology would play a role in the case if the defendant thought he was being harassed because of his ethnicity. Also the fact these people seemed to be blue collar folks would play a lot into their behavior. Obviously most of the people involved were aggressive types which might stem from their childhood and upbringings. I remember reading that some of the parties involved had prior criminal records which would also add to their aggressive behavior. The largest components of the case, I feel are the heavy alcohol usage and the fact that the defendant felt his race was an issue. Regardless if racial slurs were used against the defendant, he had still felt that his race was one of the underlining causes for his mistreatment.

What psychological terms or factors are operating in the jurors?
Within the jurors, I feel their psychological factors are somewhat more relaxed than those in other cases. Like the prosecutor said in his opening statements, this isn’t a “who-done-it” case. The jurors were not on the hook for figuring out who stabbed Petello. This might put the jurors at a little more ease at hearing the case. The jurors might have been sympathetic to the defendant if any of them had been a racial minority (but I’m guessing the prosecution wouldn’t allow a jury of all Latinos). They might have also identified with the parties involved from a social standpoint if any of them were blue collar workers.

What pieces of evidence are not disputed (ie, both sides, prosecution and defense agree to them)?
Both sides agree the crime occurred on Thanksgiving evening, the parties involved had been consuming large amounts of alcohol and illegal narcotics, that an argument had broken out in the bar over the disappearance of the $20, that gun shots had been fired, that the defendant had left the house and then later returned to the house. They also agreed that the defendant stabbed Petello.

What pieces of evidence are in dispute (ie., the prosecution or defense disagree on some point)?
There disputes lie mainly on whether or not the defendant felt that A. he was acting in self defense, and B. that his actions were provoked by the witnesses and victim. The defendant claimed to have felt threatened by the witnesses because of their violent background. The prosecution felt that the defendant had time to cool off and the fact that he came back to the house shows, that his actions were not provoked but premeditated.

Describe how the prosecution OR the defense used the evidence to craft a story to support their viewpoint.
The defense used the witnesses violent background to craft a story that showed the defendant might have felt that his life was in danger around these individuals. The defense had used the same point to show that even though the individuals were known to be violent, the defendant still agreed to come over to their house and had no hesitations about returning to the scene after he had already left. This crafts two different views of the defendant, both which are equally harmful/helpful.

At this point, as a potential juror, which way are you leaning (guilty or not guilty) and why? This is predeliberation, so do not focus on or respond to other people's comments (for a later assignment, you will deliberate with the other 'jurors' in the class)
I am leaning on the side of guilty of second degree murder. I do not feel that the defendant came back to the house with intention of murder (the idle threat of the chainsaw shows that he was more or less out to scare or get back at them, rather than kill them). I do feel that the defendant was probably provoked but the murder had not been self defense as the defendant had tried to make it seem. Also the fact that the witnesses did not feel threatened enough to even get out of their chair when an unarmed defendant entered their house. Had the defendant came there with the intent to kill one of them, one would think he would be a little more intimidating. I believe after they began taunting him, he lost control and stabbed Petello. This was a crime of opportunity, had he planned it out, he would have most likely killed one of the other men, not the only one he had gotten along with in the first place.

On a side note, I would have never made it to the jurors table because I’ve had several experiences with drunken fights that have escalated, some of which involved brandishing weapons. I don’t think the prosecution would want to keep me around very long.

What aspects of the trial procedures were you already familiar with?
Thanks to television I was already familiar with an assortment of the tactics used in trial. I was familiar with opening statetements and rebutles used. Each using the given evidence to build their cases before a jury. I was familiar with the ability to over-rule or sustain a point, or process, that isn't seen as necessary. I am also familiar with cross-examination of witnesses and closing arguments.

What aspects of the trial procedures were new to you, or you learned something about?
I guess, embarassingly, i wasn't familiar with the identification of the evidence, or that the people voted the id? I might have understood that wrong.

What surprised you most about this trial?
The biggest surprise came from how short the transcript was. I don't think it's all there is it? If it is i'm surprised at how short and unprepared both sides were with just two witnesses.

What do you think would be going through the minds of the jurors as they sat there and listened to this trial?
They were probably super confused. I read it twice because it doesn't seem like a lot of it really added up. I'm sure the jurors at first thought self defense maybe and then changed it off and on through out.

What psychological terms or factors are operating in the defendant?
I think the defendant was probably really stressed and pissed. As I can understand, oh and high. After that night i'm sure his thought processes were a little confusing due to the drugs, alcohol, and events of the night.

What psychological terms or factors are operating in the jurors?
What Juror is at peace with what he or she thinks? I mean they have to be super stressed. what if they convict an innocent man, or let guilty men walk free? Its all in the jury's hands that's a pretty stressful realization.

What pieces of evidence are not disputed (ie, both sides, prosecution and defense agree to them)?
Everyone present was under the influence is in agreement, as was everyone shooting, going to the bar, being together that night, etc.

What pieces of evidence are in dispute (ie., the prosecution or defense disagree on some point)?
Not a lot of emphasis was placed on the money or shootings though and a lot of the case seemed based off hearsay. The sides didn't agree on certain phrases and locations of the gun, etc.

Describe how the prosecution OR the defense used the evidence to craft a story to support their viewpoint.
Each side uses the evidence to the betterment of their cases. Defense tries to prove their clients innocence and the Plaintiff tries to prove the defendant's guilt. The prosecution used a diagram of the appartment to desciribe locations of logs, people, etc. to shape a story to guilt the defendant.

At this point, as a potential juror, which way are you leaning (guilty or not guilty) and why? This is predeliberation, so do not focus on or respond to other people's comments (for a later assignment, you will deliberate with the other 'jurors' in the class).
My vote would lead more towards not guilty. I understand the anger he must have felt after being treated like shit and ridiculed all night. then followed by vandalism to my vehicle, money taken from me, and everything else that was involved that night. I think he came off being a lot more calm than i think i woulda been. It especially got fishy when the one guy said he knew of the "threats" and heard him "storm in" and yell, etc. and he still thought nothing of it to defend himself or anyone. It was actually a pretty messed up lie.

What aspects of the trial procedures were you already familiar with? I was already familiar with the process of interviewing the witnesses. I have watched it on tv and movies all the time and it didnt seem to be much different.

What aspects of the trial procedures were new to you, or you learned something about? I liked the closing statments. I've only seen closing stament on movies and tv and they are short and not very detailed it seems. the closing statments in this reading were really detailed and very persuasive.

What surprised you most about this trial? I think the most suprising part of the trial was the fact that both lawyers would ask questions and after they would get one answer, they would keep asking the question over and over. i just think this was very unnecessary because theyhad already gotten an answer from the witness.

What do you think would be going through the minds of the jurors as they sat there and listened to this trial? I think they are vey confused because each side made valid points in the closing statments. i think a lot of stuff points to Mr. sanoval being guilty but there are somethings that make the witnesses unreliable.

What psychological terms or factors are operating in the defendant? I think the defendant obviously hs anger problems and is very stressed out about his van being shot. He also blacked out during the murder and does not recall what happened. I have heard that this happens a lot and people can black out during tromatic events.

What psychological terms or factors are operating in the jurors? I don't really know but they hve to be stressed out because both sides have made valid points for their clients.

What pieces of evidence are not disputed (ie, both sides, prosecution and defense agree to them)? Some of the evidence is that the van was shot by someone, Mr. sandoval was holding the knife that killed mr. Petello, everyone at the house was violent, and there had been arguments through out the night with Mr. Sandoval.

What pieces of evidence are in dispute (ie., the prosecution or defense disagree on some point)? The fact that Mr. Sandoval actually killed Mr. Petello is in dispute because Mr. Sandoval does not remember what happened after he grabbed the knife.

Describe how the prosecution OR the defense used the evidence to craft a story to support their viewpoint. The prosecution tried to make Mr. Sandoval look like a bad guy because he wouldget into arguments with almost everyone at the party. They also made the point that he was the one that had all of the weapons which is why he probably is the murderer.

At this point, as a potential juror, which way are you leaning (guilty or not guilty) and why? I am leaning toward Mr. Sandoval being guilty of first degree murder. I think that he did it because he admitted that he stabbed the victim and he was holding the knife. There was also two witnesses and the police officer. I think the way that Mr. sandoval entered the house with the chainsaw was out of control and it sounds like he really just wanted to hurt someone. he might not have ment to kill the victim but he ment to stab him.

**What aspects of the trial procedures were you already familiar with?
-The opening statements and opening arguments were definitely something familiar. They are on every show that has had a trial ever. My father is also a lawyer, so I am pretty familiar with the process in general. Opening and closing arguments from both sides were also something that is pretty commonplace in every trial and seen on multiple movies and TV shows. The objections and calling and cross examinations were also something I have heard and seen before.
**What aspects of the trial procedures were new to you, or you learned something about?
-Everything was pretty standard I don’t believe that any processes were present that someone who knows the basic outline of a trial would be unfamiliar with.
**What surprised you most about this trial?
-The story in general just is pretty intense, it is definitely not a normal thanksgiving when chainsaws, hash, and murder is involved. The contradiction of Mr. McClain’s statement about shooting the van and how the defense attorney led him there was very interesting to me. Also Mr. Sandoval never fled the scene. After hearing his confession I immediately thought guilty but him not fleeing the scene raised some more questions.
**What do you think would be going through the minds of the jurors as they sat there and listened to this trial?
-What a crazy thanksgiving! To evaluate the fate of someone who has already confessed would be a difficult thing to do. Even though it may have been in self-defense, with similar stories, sloppy police work, but legitimate defense arguments this must have been a very difficult decision to make. It also may have been confusing to evaluate because of how the defense attorney made his closing argument providing a considerable amount of additional information.
What psychological terms or factors are operating in the defendant?
-Definitely memory recall, most likely he was having trouble with recall considering the use of alcohol and hash. Emotional factors such as stress, fear, nervousness, would be running rampant during his testimony. Though it wasn’t presented as a large factor in the case, racism came into play, along with the possible wanting of revenge.
**What psychological terms or factors are operating in the jurors?
-Prejudice, definitely discretion, stress and the burden of the truth. How and what they think is the right way to render the verdict. Also social consequences of voting a certain direction or making certain decisions play a large part in the mind of a juror. Personal bias may also effect the decision that they make.
**What pieces of evidence are not disputed (ie, both sides, prosecution and defense agree to them)?
-The knife, chainsaw, the murder, the bullet holes in the van and the bar fight were not disputed. Also the state of mind everyone was in with the drugs and alcohol.
**What pieces of evidence are in dispute (ie., the prosecution or defense disagree on some point)?
--The mentality and credibility of Mr. Hutchens, whether he was a violent person and the truth to his and the police officers story. Mr. Sandoval and whether or not he was exerting revenge or simply acting in self defense on the victim. The location of the log, how the bullet holes actually go into the van. What happened specifically at the bar.
Describe how the prosecution OR the defense used the evidence to craft a story to support their viewpoint.
-The defense’s argument was more interesting and effective I believe. They took the small amount of evidence they had and used it very well, especially with the 911 call, the knife blood splatters, the knife location. They also painted a great picture of Mr. McClain as a violent person, who is unsure of his actions when he drinks. He also was portrayed as a very aggressive man. These things all lead to the fact that his testimony is not credible.
At this point, as a potential juror, which way are you leaning (guilty or not guilty) and why?
-While he is most definitely guilty, I think it would be of a lesser charge. It is his fault that he was in the situation. If Sandoval had not used drugs or alcohol his judgment may have been clearer and this situation could have been completely avoided, especially if he would not have gone back a second time. Though the suspicion surrounding the other victims is definitely a factor, it needs to be looked into for further information. Also drugs and alcohol also effect the credibility of the others testimony.

1) What aspects of the trial procedures were you already familiar with?
Most of the basic proceedings I was familiar with thanks to your CSI, Law & Order tv shows. Asking lots of yes or no questions with little room for elaboration; objections, problems with leading the witness, or asking leading questions, etc. Also making opening and closing arguments to build the case, etc.
2) What aspects of the trial procedures were new to you, or you learned something about?
There was a situation when the defense attorney was up close to the witness and was trying to demonstrate the relative size difference between the witness and defendant, and also how close they were when having an argument at the bar which was interesting, though not completely unknown to me. It makes sense that they would have rules about badgering the witness, or basically acting inappropriately towards witnesses but this was an interesting example of how that situation goes down. Then the attorney who is “yelled at” by the Judge must go right back into their defense without feeling like they just did something wrong or made a fool of themselves; I imagine this would be difficult to do.
I didn’t know that you could admit evidence into the trial, and then never make reference to it in the case, yet use it in your closing arguments when there is no more chance for explanation or rebuttal. The defense brings the phone records up in the closing arguments with the specific intent of demonstrating that the prosecution never mentioned anything about who called the police, and where McClain went directly after the murder.
3) What surprised you most about this trial?
What I just mentioned was the most surprising thing to me. I didn’t know that key evidence could be left out of the case if you chose. And that even if you chose to leave it out of your strategy you could bring up this new evidence during your closing arguments. Less interesting but still surprising was just the miscellaneous facts that didn’t fit into the whole coherent story. Why did McClain go next door for a beer after the guy was stabbed? Why would the Prosecution say he was stabbed by the fireplace when there was what sounds like “gallons” of blood all over Sandoval, the knife, the door, and the patio? Was the house messy or dirty? Why did Sandoval leave and then come back with the chainsaw? I got the impression that the Defense tried to downplay the time difference between when Sandoval saw the bullet holes, and when he confronted the attackers but if he didn’t leave why did he get in his van to drive up over the curb and on to the lawn if he was already parked a short distance away from the apartment?
4) What do you think would be going through the minds of the jurors as they sat there and listened to this trial?
They should be highly skeptical of all the information since all the party members involved have former criminal records, and problems with drug and alcohol abuse, and violent tempers. Numerous important facts both incriminate and exhonerate, both the witnesses/victim and the defendant, making for a very good class project, but a very difficult case.
5) What psychological terms or factors are operating in the defendant?
I answered this question more broadly in terms of the defendant and the witnesses, though they are closely related.
I don’t recall exactly how much time has passed since the incident, through the initial hearing, and now to the trial but I gather lots of time. They mention the event took place on Thanksgiving, and a hearing around January. Eye-witness, and memory problems, impaired judgment and cognition due to heightened arousal over the fighting, and also complications with alcohol and hash. These problems could be made better or worse due to the history of these same things that each person has. Maybe they are better (or worse) at recalling things when drunk, high, and fighting, since they may or may not do this all the time.
It is difficult to figure out exactly where friendships and loyalties lie amongst this group but regardless their motivations play a role in this case a great deal. From this it is possible that racial stereotypes and biases have played a role in either causing or exacerbating the problems on the day in question.
6) What psychological terms or factors are operating in the jurors?
Personal biases regarding the various backgrounds and histories of everyone involved. If they are racist or prejudice they may rule against the defendant; yet everyone else seems to have criminal or “shady” backgrounds as well so it may not be an issue. Anytime people are thinking, let alone thinking within a group, issues of intelligence, assertiveness, temperament, and other personality characteristics play a large role. Each person may have a slightly different understanding of “beyond a reasonable doubt” etc.
Whether or not the jurors themselves have any personal experience with drugs, alcohol, being a victim, etc., will also play a large role in their decision making. What societal norms do they have regarding inappropriate behaviors like those exhibited by the defendant and the other party members?
7) What pieces of evidence are not disputed (ie, both sides, prosecution and defense agree to them)?
Both sides in this case admit that Potello was stabbed by Sandoval with the carving knife. Murder is not in dispute, but the degree is. That Sandoval’s van was shot is not in dispute but whether it was done intentionally is. General information about first going to the house, then arguing and going to the bar, then ending the day in the house with the stabbing is mostly agreed upon.
8) What pieces of evidence are in dispute (ie., the prosecution or defense disagree on some point)?
Sandoval’s mental state, i.e. thoughts, cognitions, motivations, conscious state, etc. The defense claims and will argue that the prosecution’s witnesses are not credible. They are in dispute about where the murder weapon was, if it was in the kitchen Sandoval needed to think and search to find it, if the house was in disarray then he may have just picked up the closest thing he could find to defend himself.
Was Potello in possession of a log? Was he in the doorway or by the fireplace when he was stabbed? Could Sandoval have actually been swinging his knife to get people away or must it have been a direct stab intended as a killing blow? There is a lot of disagreement about the nature of various fights that broke out throughout the personal histories of the men involved. At one point Hutchens claims him and Bobby got into a fight while drinking on Thanksgiving, but it “didn’t amount to nothin’.” At another time he admits that he gets violent, agitated and generally out of control whenever he drinks. Similar stories exist for Sandoval.

9) Describe how the prosecution OR the defense used the evidence to craft a story to support their viewpoint.
Since I’ll be siding for the defense later on I’ll try to re-create the story the prosecution is telling here.
The important facts are: Defendant has confessed to the crime (although not to murder 1 in particular). The murder weapon is present and is directly linked to the cause of death. Numerous eye-witnesses, with (for the most part) corroborating evidence. Motive for murder 1 has been established by the eye-witnesses and the police report. At the very least it has been demonstrated that upon deciding that Hutchens, McClain, and Potello, and others perhaps, were at fault for shooting his van Sandoval went back to his van and drove it back to the house before quickly brandishing a chainsaw and approaching the house. As opposed to his decision that they were guilty directly and immediately proceeding, his violent actions which would be more in line with the common understanding of “self-defense,” which involves defending yourself from attackers whom you cannot get away from.
Prosecution tells the story that all the witnesses and the victim did not take Sandoval’s threats seriously, accounting for why they did not flee or avoid Sandoval. Photo’s are shown indicating that the eating materials had been taken into the kitchen for cleaning, indicating that Sandoval must have had to go on a hunt looking for a good murder weapon. Predominatly this fact, in combination with Sandoval’s decision to get back into his car and leave following the altercation at the bar are what indicate forethought, intent, and deliberation regarding the murder.
10) At this point, as a potential juror, which way are you leaning (guilty or not guilty) and why? This is predeliberation, so do not focus on or respond to other people's comments (for a later assignment, you will deliberate with the other 'jurors' in the class).
I would rule not guilty for murder 1. First, murder 1 is reserved for the most heinous of crimes so a prosecuting attorney ought to have a fairly air-tight case. There are numerous holes in this story that at the very least leave room for reasonable doubt. Unless the prosecution can come up with some story for why there is no blood in the area where they claim Potello was standing than it is obvious that he was in fact in the doorway; indicating that Sandoval was in fact surrounded, with his exit being blocked.
Next, why did McClain stay for a beer at the bar? This behavior is unbelievable and calls much of the prosecutions story into question. It makes sense he would leave if the house doesn’t have a phone, but if so, than why go to the bar and not the next house down? If the bar literally is the closest thing than Sandoval’s decision to get into his car and move it towards the house could still have been done even if he was so furious that he couldn’t make rational decisions. Meaning Sandoval’s return to his car would not necessarily indicate deliberation.
Since, as the defense attorney points out, the burden of proof (e.g. in regards to the location of the knife) is in the hands of the prosecution I simply could not convict based on the large number of holes in their arguments. Everybody was drunk and high; one eye-witness was not interviewed until 19 hours after the case, and may or may not have been chilling with a beer at the bar shortly after the murder. Also the eye-witnesses statements are simply sketchy and inconsistent. They all maintain that they didn’t shoot the van even though they spent the better part of a day getting drunk, high, and shooting a gun out the front door at telephone polls, street lights, and a piece of firewood, all in a residential style location with people and buildings around? If they were unable to realize they accidently shot a van they would not be very worthwhile witnesses, and if they did, then they are lieing.