Trial Day 4: Judges Instructions, Deliberation, Class Discussion
Reflect on your experience (whether you were a direct participant or not). Then, tie what you saw/experienced in to psychology and law. It is fine to have an initial paragraph just remarking on what you thought about the experience (weird, wow, boring, whatever). But the remainder of your blog post should be more formal.
I did not participate in today's trial but really enjoyed listening to the attorney's closing statements. I really thought that the prosecution's was especially good and did a very good job of describing the events that took place and tying in all of the evidence that was presented throughout the trial. The defense did a good job as well. Al the defense needed to do was to place reasonable doubt into the minds of the jurors, and as described the jurors, they did. Each story was very convincing, but I think that a lot of the evidence was disregarded.
I was very disappointed with the "not guilty" verdict but had a feeling that, that was going to be the verdict. The defense did a very good job of implanting reasonable doubt into the minds of the jurors and that was what won the trial for the defense. I was not so convinced due to the fingerprint left on the murder weapon. Even though it wasn't a strong match, it was still a match, and that really stuck out in my mind.
Overall though, I did have a lot of fun. I do feel that I got too emotionally involved but I think that most of the participants did. Everybody did a very good job of playing their part.
Today was the last day of our trial which included closing arguments, judge’s directions and jury deliberation. I was impressed with both the prosecutor and defendant’s closing statements, they did a good job of summing up what had been presented and how that either supports their case or disproves the other side’s point of view. I thought that the judge’s directions were long but I understood their importance especially the definition of the different crimes that were possible to convict of. Also the stress put on reasonable doubt, and that if there was any part of us that wasn’t totally sure or second guessing ourselves that we had to vote not guilty because that is reasonable doubt.
As part of the jury, we went to discuss and deliberate our verdict, I was absolutely positive that I was going to be the only person who voted not guilty and that everybody was going to be mad that we didn’t have a unanimous agreement. However the exact opposite happened, everybody voted not guilty and everybody else thought they were going to be the only person voting not guilty. After we discussed what had been presented to us during the case and the different theories that where explored, we all agreed that there was not enough evidence to link the defendant to the murder. We all agreed that both sides did a really good job of presenting their side with the information they were given, but that there were just too many loose ends and questions in our heads to even come close to convicting the defendant.
Some of the things that we all found confusing as the jury, was the whole scenario of what happened in the union when the victim was murdered. Also how the mask was included but not found or used as evidence. Also the witnesses that were called for the prosecution we felt could have been stronger, or used their expert witness in a different area besides the handwriting analysis, just because we had kind of discounted their credibility in class anyways. Another thing that we felt was lacking was just the whole connection from one thing to the next. I think it would have been helpful to have had more pictures of the crime scene or more information for the autopsy to explain the extent of the killing. Was there just one stab wound or were their multiple? This may have supported the idea of a passionate killing if there were multiple stab wounds, also indicating that it might have been personal.
I think that Dr. MacLin did a really good job of touching on the same points we had as the jury. She pointed out the cognitive process that a lot of jury members have when presented with a case. They don’t get all the facts and don’t have a lot of the background that other people do. We as the jury were trying to piece together who was involved and different elements of the crime that I think both sides assumed the jury already knew. Tying this trial back to class there were a lot of elements of motivation and emotion at play during the trial. Also the cognitive processes involved and perceptions of the defendant, witnesses and evidence presented. Overall I really enjoyed the mock trial and I think it was a very realistic representation of the elements included in a real trial. I learned a lot about psychology and its involvement and interaction with the law and our court system.
What an exciting way to end this class. This was probably one of the most interesting classes I have taken here at UNI—especially during the mock trial days. Today was the last day of the mock trial. We began the day with the defendant and prosecutor’s closing statements. After that, the judge read the jury directions about deliberation and clarified the terms the defendant could be charged with. Being part of the jury, I thought the brief descriptions were very helpful.
Throughout the trial, I have been trying to sort out my thoughts but in the back of my mind there was reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the murder of Beth. Going into deliberation, I decided to go with my gut feeling because there was reasonable doubt in my mind. Before we discussed the trial, the jury took a unanimous vote. When the foreperson read the results of our vote, I was shocked to learn that everyone else voted that the defendant was not guilty of either manslaughter or second degree murder. As we talked about our reasons, it came down to not enough supporting evidence to actually put the man in jail for these crimes. We felt that the story was not conclusive enough to make a firm affirmation that this man was guilty of murdering Beth. We came up with a few questions during our deliberation. We talked about how we were visualizing the scene and how the murder occurred. We agreed that it would be helpful for the jury to have pictures of where the crime scene took place to make everyone’s visual of the scene more concrete. There were some instances in this case where I was a little confused when trying to keep each person in the story and plot straight in my mind. In the end, I was shocked to learn that the defendant was actually guilty of the killing Beth!
I thought both the defense and prosecuting attorneys did a great job throughout this trial! After listening to both sides of the case, I realized how much time was spent to bring this mock trial altogether! What a great experience! I had a good time experiencing what it would be like to be a juror. This experience seemed very realistic, especially as the trial continued; students were able to get into their roles a little more. I learned that it is important for a juror to avoid any media displays about the assigned case. It is also important for a jury member to come into the case with an open mind and listen to both sides. Jury members are not going to be exposed to every single detail during the trial, but it is important for a jury member to give one’s honest vote during deliberation. Overall, this was a very cool experience.
Today, the final day of trial and class was a lot of fun. The final part of the trial dealt with closing arguments, which were performed very well. Both sides made valid points that pertained to their case. I think i would have had a tough decision as a jury member because i belived the defendant was guilty but the defense brought fourth so much doubt that it would have been hard for me to convict. After the closing arguments it was time for me, the judge, to give judges directions. During this time i was to read to the jury how they should rule after they have haerd and gone through all the evidence presented by the defense and state. Basically, it was a lot of reading that i had to give to the jury, as well as the court. I see how it could be hard for jury members, both in our trial and real life cases, to put aside all of the jargon that the judge is to use when giving directions. I know that if the judge was not my role i would not know many of the terms within the binder. AFter the directions it wss time for the jury to deliberate and make their final decisions about the fate of the defendant. With about a half an hours time, the jury was able to reach a decision, and court was back in progress. The jury found the defendant not guilty on all charges. I say not guilty instead of innocent because there was not enough evidence to prove innocence, just not guilt. Also because we were later informed as a class that the defendant did indeed commit the crime. Several factors of psychology and law played into the last day of trial. Although it is not correct of a jury to present their believes soley on opinion of a defendant or attorney maybe it could be present in some cases. For example, if a member of the trial is not very likeable or is really friendly then psychological factors could sway a jurys opinion. Not to say this was at all present in our class, i feel that each jury member decided on the evidence present.
All in all i had a great time throughout this semester. It was a great way to get a hands on look at the judical process while weaving in the psychological aspects that play such an important class. During our last discussion when people were talking about all the work put in behind the scenes it really hit home as to how much effort is really placed into this project. With that i would like to thank everyone involved, especially Dr. Maclin, for making this one of my favorite classes of my collegent career.
The day of deliberation had finally come and the entire semester of work and information had all come down to this. I was excited for the last day, being a jury member, because it was the day where we held supreme and had the ultimate say. The day began with closing statements; first by the prosecution, followed by the defense. To make a comment here, the prosecution had a well prepared closing and did a good job on the case overall so i give them props. The defense's closing statement was above par as he really stressed the aspect of "beyond a reasonable doubt" which was a phenomenal card giving the doubt that they had raised through out their case and cross-examinations.
We were left to deliberate for over a half of an hour and I enjoyed this experience because it was the first time we were to really get an idea of what everyone was thinking and what certain people thought, noticed, or assumed. The deliberation went more successful than i had suspected, as we all hands down selected Not Guilty from the starting gates and solidified this choice by our further conversations.
The verdict was announced and we continued onto having a class discussion about the actual truth and reality of details that we were trying to calculate ourselves the entire process. This revealing was nice because one will always wonder in real life, but in this case it was nice to know the "behind the scenes" activity.
I, as a juror, selected Not Guilty and did find out that the actual case did have a defendant that was in fact guilty. Honestly, i loved this aspect and is the full reason I am pursuing a law degree. The job of us jurors is to hear both sides and reach a verdict based on the cases presented, and if we have any reasonable doubt we must not convict. Given this specific case I would vote NOT GUILTY ten more times if i had to. Its not what you know (as we found out he was guilty) but what you can prove in court. Given this statement very true and the sole reason we even have a court system with a bench is to give the defendant a fair trial by a jury of his peers. The state did have a good case yet it seemed every single time they had a good witness or evidence the cross-examination of the defense discredited it before it could even stick relevant. Given this case presented by the defense, they did their job well, which was to cast a glimpse of reasonable doubt and they did just that. The reason i say i feel comfortable with my decision is based upon the case presented that was how it appeared. If i am going to go against my gut instinct because I think he may be guilty or the only reason he looks not guilty is because of good crossing I don't deserve to be on the jury. The case clearly gave the defendant a path of freedom so I selected it. Would I change my mind now knowing the result? Absolutely not, any day I would much rather have a murderer walking free than an innocent man behind bars for something he didn't do. Obviously i know its not comfortable to know we have him free, but in honest common sense I highly doubt he will be committing any crimes even close to a misdemeanor anytime in the near future knowing how he slipped by.
overall the class was for certain very enjoyable, informative, and worth every second. The ideas for the class by Dr. MacLin are a very good as it was fun to actually go through the process and read/post along the way subjects relative to law and psychology. In trial you can see how the two subjects of psychology and law do indeed tie together. Psychology was very apparent when a witness got stuck or an attorney slipped up. I loved the class and would refer it to anyone, it was by far the best class i have ever taken at UNI as a junior. Not only was it fun but i indeed learned a ton of information, enjoyed the experience of a "mock" trial, and actually saw the information being taught very interesting. It was a fun semester and kind of sucks the class is over! CHEERS!
Wow, what a way to end the semester. As a jury member, I kinda felt a little remorse about our decision, like we let the class down a little. But honestly, we just felt like there was too much reasonable doubt to convict.
During deliberation, we decided to take a blind preliminary vote (with everybody writing their votes down on a piece of paper so that nobody felt pressured to write down a verdict they didn't truly agree with) so we knew where we stood initially and how to organize our deliberations. What I don't think we all counted on was that the initial vote would end in a unanimous decision to vote not guilty. We all were pretty shocked but as we discussed it more, we all seemed to agree that there were a lot of holes in the prosecution's case. I don't want to sound as though the prosecution didn't do a good job with the evidence they had, but by definition of the law, their job is that much more difficult because they bare the responsibility of proving that Nathan did actually commit these crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.
Throughout the trial, I took notes to try and keep everything straight (so in case we did end up debating during deliberations that we had at least something semi-reliable to refer back to since I figured we wouldn't be able to refer back to actual transcripts). Unfortunately, I still ended up confused about how everything fit together and my notes really ended up being useless. That confusion is what added for me to have reasonable doubt. There was so many unanswered questions left that I felt it hindered the prosecution's case. For instance, Beth's boyfriend Aaron claimed that he was off campus the day of the murder, however, from what I gathered from the investigator's testimony, they did not bother checking out the alibi. Also, how did both Aaron's and Nathan's DNA get on the card? That didn't make much sense to me.
Another thing, I don't know if it was because we were having technical or what, but I never heard the testimony that Nathan admitted to being in the Union the day Beth died. That was a crucial piece of testimony that I missed. I'm not sure if it would have been enough to change my verdict but it may have.
I will admit that during closing arguments, I did have a moment were I did contemplate whether he did in fact do it. But after going back over the evidence in my mind, I didn't think there was enough there to convict him.
During our post-trial discussion, we discussed the difficulty jurors have of trying to envision the events that took place and keeping track of the storyline. Like I had said in the room, I couldn't picture where this all happened because I've never been in the Union. In my opinion, this was a major blow to the prosecution because since I couldn't envision the crime taking place, I felt it made it easier for me to develop reasonable doubt.
I have to give everybody involved with this case a big pat on the back. It is obvious that everybody spent a lot of time and really got into their roles. It made the whole experience that much better and from our seats in the jury, that much more entertaining (thanks to a certain investigator, I now know what a "zong" is). Wait to go everybody!
I was not a direct participant in the trial today. I thought both of the attorneys did very well with their closing statements, summarizing what was seen in the trial, and trying to twist everything their way so the jury would come to a verdict in their favor. Honestly, I was not surprised with the verdict at all. The defense did amazing and were extremely prepared. The prosecution did very well as well and made a very good case. It feels amazing to know that we did get the right guy even though we didn’t get the conviction. The judge also did a great job with all the objections and things like that, he was really quick with his decisions especially with the pressure he was probably feeling. I think that overall everyone in the class did an amazing job with their roles and made it a lot more exciting and interesting that it could have been. The feeling today in court was a lot more relaxed than the other days as well. Some of the things that happened today that tie into psychology and law are things like when the judge brought up the reliability of eye witness testimony. I do have a feeling that some of the jurors just went with whatever the foreperson or whatever said. I believe that there was some pretty solid evidence and that they may have listened more to what the defense attorney was saying rather than the evidence. All in all I thought that this mock crime and trial was incredibly helpful to get an idea of what will happen in the future especially since I do want to become a detective. I was very happy that we actually caught the right guy, it felt really good knowing that it was right and it sucks that most of the time we will never actually know. I think that Nathan was an awesome killer and that Cass Nova made the investigation far more interesting and exciting on our end. I think everyone was a good sport, especially with some of the personal stuff that got brought up, but it was all in good fun and I hope that no one has any hard feelings. I would love to play a role in the future mock crimes for sure! This class has been awesome and one of my top three favorites of my academic career. Dr. MacLin thank you so much for putting all the time and energy into making a mock crime and mock trial happen, you are an awesome professor. I hope to see everyone again from the class and am very excited to see what comes of future mock crimes. Maybe I’ll be the next victim or killer muahaha.
Sadly I was not a direct part of the trial today just like the rest of the days:( I kind of had a feeling though that after the class period where we discussed the unreliability of eyewitnesses that there was a slim to none chance that I, an eyewitness, would be called to testify. Besides that point, today was just as interesting as the last three trial days. Today, we heard the closing arguments of the prosecution and defense. Both sets of attorney's once again did a phenomenal job with the information that they were given. It was amazing how they could twist their words or how they phrased things and have the case come across in two completely different manners. After that, the judge gave his directions about sentencing to the jury members. I wish I had been able to be a fly on the wall during the jury deliberation. It always make me think of the classic 1957 movie, "12 Angry Men" which is about a jury with vastly different opinions of the murder case at hand.
One of the most obvious connections of today's trial to psychology and law is the fact that a guilty man walked free. Just like in true life, more than people would like to admit, the criminal gets away scotch-free. I honestly can say that I was not at all surprised that Nathan Dollhouser walked on his charges. The defense did a superb job of taking information, even if at times it may have seemed a bit ruthless, and used it to better support their case. Overall, this was my absolute favorite class this semester! I've never experienced a class so hands on before and I loved it. It was amazing to see how serious everyone took their roles and how wonderfully they executed them when the time came.
Even though I wasn’t involved in today’s trial, it was still fairly entertaining. I think both sides did a great job of presenting their closing arguments. I listened to one side and completely agreed with them. After that, I heard the other side’s argument and found myself torn. This seemed to be a theme during the trial which means both attorneys argued their cases very well. The defense did a very good job going at different angles to produce reasonable doubt within the jurors. I thought it might be more effective if they heavily focused on one, but obviously the route they took was successful.
As part of a portion of the investigation, I knew what was going on for the most part. I didn’t know everything, but I knew enough to keep up with the attorneys’ stories. This was not the case for the jurors. I didn’t think about this during the trial, but when it was brought up afterwards it made a lot of sense. I probably would have been a little confused if I was a jury member. Not that the prosecution did a poor job describing the crime, but it is just very hard to paint a picture for people who have no idea what is going on. This could have been a reason not guilty was a unanimous decision right away. Not completely understanding the story probably created reasonable doubt for the jury.
I think this project is a great way to actually see what problems different roles in law enforcement come across. As an outsider to real life crimes, one doesn’t realize how hard each role is. This project allows for this to happen. Even though it is not completely real, everyone go into their roles and made it seem as real as possible. The defendant did an outstanding job as well and this whole process made this class my favorite class so far at UNI.
Unfortunately, due to an automatic work schedule and an inability to find someone to cover for me, I was unable to make it to Trial Day 4. Because of this, I will just summarize and reflect upon the other trial days.
Being a part of the media, I did not participate directly in the trial. I was very impressed with how the attorneys presented their cases, carried themselves, and spoke in the "courtroom." Both the prosecution and the defense were very thorough and professional when questioning witnesses. It was clear to see how many things we learned about in this class related directly to the mock trial. For example, we read about jury selection, which we saw happen on Trial Day 1. Also, the attorneys brought up points in their questioning that we covered in class. For example, the defense brought up the investigation and interrogation of Mr. Dahlhauser. They questioned its legitimacy and wondered if the arrest had been made due to pressure from the public to make an arrest. We also heard about eye witness testimony, which was examined earlier in this course. While I was watching the trial, I was completely convinced by the eye witness's descriptions of the murderer. I began to think back to the chapter we read in C&K about eye witness testimony, and remembered how unreliable it can truly be. The phenomena of it appearing to be very reliable was certainly present within myself, as I am sure it was within some of the jurors or other classmates also.
One thing that we did not cover in the class, but I found very interesting in the trial was the questioning of Ben Potter, who was a police officer. The defense questioned his credibility, due to a photograph that was on his Facebook page. I thought this was a phenomenal tactic. Although they had no proof that Ben had used drugs, it could certainly make the jury question his abilities in the investigation of the crime and the arrest that was made. This portion of the trial made me wonder how often police officers are questioned for their credibility due to the contamination of evidence, lack of thorough investigation, or personal lives.
In regards to psychology, it was very clear in the trial that the way in which an attorney questions a witness greatly affects their testimony. There were a couple of times during the trial that I was thinking to myself "this should be objected due to irrelevance or leading the witness." The attorneys can mold their questions in order to prompt the witness to answer in a certain way. For example, in our trial, the attorneys led the witnesses when questioning about the body type and build of the murderer. They formed brief descriptions into their questions in order to prompt a proper response from the witnesses about how tall the murderer was and how big he was.
In all, the mock crime and mock trial project help put what we've read and learned in this course into a realistic perspective. We often watch crime shows on television, or read about crimes in the news. However, it is very different to actually be involved in the process. I enjoyed the mock crime, mock trial, and this class very much. It has certainly been one of the most interesting and enjoyable classes that I have ever taken.
This trial experience has been great. I am a part of the media so I was a spectator to the trial itself.
It is weird. I was extremely invested in the crime itself and suddenly I was watching Nathan's fate decided (I thought he was innocent) and there was nothing I could do to influence the decision one way or another. I sort of felt helpless. But it was fun reacting. There was so much drama with experts being thwarted and witnesses providing contradictory information.
I think this project is a safe replica of the Stanford Prison Experiment. What had happened with Stanford experiment was studying how quickly people fell into the oppressor and oppressed roles. But in our class, no such thing is happening. It is actually watching people adopt roles in a very realistic way. But I think it could be better. If all of this were to be done as an experiment, some of the factors that ground people to reality, like other classes and blogs, we would get a more realistic adoptation of roles.
I believe our jury was naturally biased. I am proud of their decision, but I do think just taking this class warned them against the dangers of eye witness testimony, memory and some dubious evidence like handwriting analysis. With this in mind, they may have been more lenient and taken these components of the case less serious. I do not know if the actual jury would have been able to disregard the handwriting expert, or if that would have made a difference.
Here is something that is bothering me now. All the way through this class, we've been focusing on innocent people being wrongly convicted do to false confessions, faulty eye witness testimony etc. So I think everyone in the jury was pretty determined to make sure it did not happen. But now we part from class knowing that we would be able to release the guilty. I am really concerned that our class will not be able to show this leniency in an actual jury simply because we are now aware that we have and we could release guilty suspects.
I wanted to see the reality of the weapon focus. Unfortunately, the witnesses didn't even see the weapon. So that is automatically void.
The judge, the attorneys all played their parts very well. And the officers were exactly their part. I thought the prosecution did a stellar job of presenting their case persuasively, however I was naturally bent toward the defense and was amazed by how well Kolton defended Nathan. That was crazy. He did such a great job.
This has been an incredible experience. We have done so much, learned so much in the 17 weeks we've been together. I'm glad it's over because it was so much work. But I will remember this time very fondly. It was a lot of fun, though I went crazy toward the end when I was convinced Nathan was innocent (I'm still hitting myself over the head).
I had an a great time taking place in this mock trial and I am extremely glad that I took this class.
In yeterdays trial, as a juror, we found Nathan to be not guilty on both charges. Turned out that he was actually quilty. I think this is a great representation of what actually happens out in real life. We, as jurors, were not givin enough incriminating evidence to feel confident in convicting him, there was definetly a whole lot of reasonable doubt. I couldn't help but feel as though the prosecution blamed us for the reaching the not guilty verdict. When Nathan was telling how they constructed the plot line, the prosecution attorneys kept rolling their eyes because they dead on in their belief of what happened. I was personaly upset about this, it was not our fault that we did not feel comfortable convicting Nathan, we can only work with what we are givin.
On the other side of the spectrum, Holy Cow, the defense team did a great job! They knew they had a guilty man yet they did everything that could to get him off the hook. They always had the last word and were able to uncover many things, discredit the prosecution, and come up with great alternate stories of what could have happened if Nathan was not the one. They also put a lot more heart into it I think, making it seem as though they wanted Nathan to be found not guilty because they honestly could not live with "putting an innocent man behind bars." It was definetly well played out and I thought for sure the the defense attorneys were for once the "good guys" trying to protect an innocent man.-- symbolic of what actually happens in the real world. All jurors came up with a not guilty verdict on the very first poll, so clearly the defense did a great job! But both teams worked extremely hard and put on a great trial for us to be apart of. What a great semester!
Yesterday was the final court day. It's crazy that we have come so far. The prosecution made final statements along with the defense.
I felt as though during the entire trial the defense made the best argument. Although he made many people mad, that is what attorneys sometimes have to do. I felt as though our class was being extra nice so we did not hurt other people's feelings. This is not the case during real life cases. They tear you down and make you look completely incompetent.
The jury had a quick deliberation and found that Nathan was innocent on both charges. I felt that the defensive had convinced me as well. The prosecution never made solid points. It seemed as though they focused on how Beth was no long alive and all of their expert witnesses did not supply solid evidence in their favor. So this obviously worked in the defense's favor each time.
The defense ended up being wrong, but this happens. The defense technically did a good job. Even if their client is guilty, they do their best to lessen their charge, or prove them innocent. The defense said that had this been a real trial, they would have had more evidence. They did what they were supposed to do. The prosecution were very angry. They knew exactly what happened, which they did tell the jury, they just didn't support the information they had.
As the media I had many conversations with Cass Nova which turned out to be Nathan. It is crazy that Nathan was Cass. Cass would always tell me how all of these people were being wrongly accused and that he had done it. He was Cass! This completely surprised me.
The jury freed a guilty man. The jury said they were only give a few pieces of evidence and that they didn't have enough. In real life that is what the jury is often given. Just a few pieces of evidence. They must then make a decision without losing how they feel in the process. I can't help but think that even if one person feels differently that they might just go with the majority so they do not cause conflict. The jury has a big job and can only know based on how the case was presented. The defensive presented a more accurate and convincing story. It's frustrating that the prosecution was correct, but they just didn't have a good enough story to back it up. All in all each member of the court worked really hard and presented a convincing case. It was really enjoyable to watch.
This class was so different from the other classes I have been involved in. It was interactive and had a main objective to reach. I enjoyed this class and would recommend it to my psych friends.
What can I say? If I were a jury member I would have let him go as well. The defense played their part well, especially Kolton (he really knew his stuff). The prosecution had the story line pretty much right on; they only needed HARD evidence against Nathan. I did not do anything on the fourth day besides sit in the gallery. I assigned the role of sketch artist and there really wasn’t much for me to do since Nate wore a full mask (even covering his eyes), a hooded sweatshirt, pants, and running shoes. There was NOTHING for me to work with; the eyewitnesses had no skin color, facial features, or facial distinctions for me to work with. So this is how I embraced my second role.
I was unfortunately notified with the information that Nathan was going to kill Beth, before the murder had taken place. I was faced with a few options, tell the investigators and get the case over with (not advisable by Dr. MacLin), keep my mouth shut and have an easy semester since there really was NO eyewitness evidence to create a sketch from, OR help Nate out and be a mole. I do have to say the “taking it easy” option was looking fairly bright, but I obviously came around to choosing option number three. Taking on my role as a Sketch Artist Mole (aka a “sketchy mole”) was fairly easy. Task number one: make sure the investigators do not suspect me as a mole. I accomplished this by being eager to “catch-a-killa” and tentative to the information presented. Task number two: establish a Mole. CassNova was blogging one day to the investigators and gave them a tip that one of their own had a big mouth and was leaking information to him. Nate proceeded by stating that she was a member of the CSI. This set the investigative team on edge; they were determined to weed out the mole so they could continue in this case. It seems as if I had built a trust with one investigator and police officer, for they told me their plan to how they were going to find out who is the mole. They decided on telling both CSI one of two stories: a) the investigators were closing in on CassNova, or b) the investigators were nowhere near the end of this case. Now I could not remember who was being told what, so the CSI had a 50/50 chance of being titled as the Mole. Sorry Ashley, you got the butt end of the stick and was from then on titled :MOLE. As the case proceeded, I was still included on investigation because I had a connection with the defendant. (his girlfriend is one of my roommates) This inclusion led me to give more feedback to Nate about the case. One more thing, I can assure that the investigators would have NEVER had Nathan as a suspect if it weren’t for me knowing. The girl who told me about Nate possibly being the killer was the whole reason why Nate was a suspect. One of the CSI overheard my friend say that she thought Nate was the killer in the Psych and Law class. So thanks to Alyssa (former prosecutor) the investigators had a suspect in the first place to go from. Nate covered his tracks very nicely, and the investigators would have been forced to go after people who had a connection with Beth, such as TC and Aaron. Although, Nate was eager to be on trial, for he did not want anyone else taking credit for his crime (scary, I know). The CassNova profile was cleaver, and maybe the profile would lead the investigators to Nathan. But, in the end, I do think I would have known either way. This class was intriguing and interesting. I thoroughly enjoyed watching people get into their roles. It made class enjoyable!
I must say that I have no regrets in my decision making skills at all. I used cognitive psychology to mess with the law enforcement. I wanted them to trust in me and believe anything I would say. I do have to say that I never gave false information to them about Nathan; I gave them any information they wanted to know from me. I used social psychology to exclude one member of the CSI to benefit myself. Selfish, I know, but it did get interesting. I manipulated many, just as Nathan did, which would place me in jail and without a job in the “real world”, but not in class. I was able to be someone who I am not in real life. It was a blast being sneaky and manipulative.
Talking about perception being a key psychological role played in this trial. Both the prosecution and defense did a great job of trying to set up the story for the jury. They needed to hone in the jury members cognitive functioning (as MacLin addressed) to try and get them to figure out what really happened. Though the prosecution set up the story nicely and in all actuality was dead on, the defense really did its' job and placed much reasonable doubt inside the jury's head.
If I was on the jury member I would have voted not guilty as well because all of the evidence that the prosecution presented, the defense would pick apart and make it seem illegitimate. As an expert witness for the defense, I actually played a key role in doing so. I think that since the fingerprint evidence was shot down and was labeled the lowest fingerprint match possible this placed much doubt.
I found it funny how worked up everyone got when it was told to us that Nathan really was the murderer. I was even explaining it to my boyfriend after, and he who wasn't even involved was getting angry. I guess it really tells you, if you did the crime, then get a good lawyer. The defense did a great job, I'm not sure if either are law majors, but you most certainly have good chances at a prospective career. I'm not discrediting the prosecution by any means, because the ladies did a wonderful job, Kolton I think just got to them.
Day four of the trial was exciting to experience. Although I was not directly involved it was great to see the attorneys give their closing arguments and summarize all the work done by everyone together! I thought the fact that the jury really had time to deliberate while we had to leave the room was so interesting and surprising. I figured we would just stay while they deliberated; however, actually leaving made the whole experience more real. Also, the fact that the defendant was into his part helped to make the trial and investigation confusing, exciting, and tangible. Listening to the judge’s instructions was very long and monotonous however it gave the jury members time to think about what they needed to do. It also gave the defendant a chance to receive a verdict of not guilty. I believe the defense did a great job at establishing reasonable doubt. Although his defendant was guilty it did everything he needed to make sure his client had a fair trial.
I found the fact that the jury members found it difficult to understand enlightening. It was something I had never thought about before. I found several examples of jury members that were affected by the media or found cases just simply tough to listen to because of their beliefs.
http://blog.thejurorinvestigates.com/2010/01/14/its-very-hard-to-be-a-jurorsouth-carolina-v-rye.aspx
Jurors constantly deal with many problem and questions in trial. They believe that justice should be served however do not always know how to define a law. They spend a lot of time in deliberation making sure that a crime fits a specific law. They have to be cognitively aware of what is going on in the case to understand the chain of events. Also, jury member are anxious and up tight. No matter how important a case may be to attorneys or even family members of the victim, the defendant, etc. the jury members still have a life outside of the trial that is temporarily stagnated or interrupted with the case.
http://www.trialbehavior.com/articles/Theme%20Development%20and%20Jury%20Selection%20in%20Product%20Liability%20Litigation.htm
In high school, my class watched the movie ‘Amistad’ and I was very moved by the attorney’s ability to convey his passion through his words. Attorneys not only need to know the law front to back they have to be able to connect with the jury members.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJwD5km_VrQ
The final day of trial i had a really great time because I truly believe in my heart that the jury was going to side with us meaning the defense. this class was a lot of fun i truly believed that me and my partner Kolton did a really good job in the short amount of time that we had, though out the trial we interviewed everyone and just so we could know what their view was about the case, we questioned witnesses that we knew was going to be a huge help to us and while in court we presented our case in the way the jury's would have understood. The final part of the trial dealt with closing arguments, which were performed very well. Both sides made valid points that pertained to their case. I think persecution closing statement was great and ours could have been wonderful too but our client did not want us to tell the jury's about what all they saw. at the end we won because I we the defense brought fourth so much doubt that it would have been hard for our client to get convicted. After Kolton did the closing arguments i was paying attention to the jury member faces just to see their reaction and they really did not have much to say so i though they has already made up their minds on wither my client was guilty or not. as the judge started to give jury directions on how they should rule after they have haerd and gone through all the evidence presented by the defense and state. i was thinking to myself how are the Jury's going to remember all this stuff hes talking about because all their faces looked blanked out. at the end of it all the jury found the defendant who is my client not guilty on all charges and at that moment i felt good because all our hard work paid off. as we wnt on to review the case and got every ones thoughts on the case i felt good also about it but later i felt bad for the jury's because the jury found the defendant not guilty on all charges when he was suppose to be found guilty on all charges; .which showed that Several factors of psychology and law was played into the last day of trial.
All in all i had a great time throughout this semester. It was a great way to get a hands on look at the judical process During our last discussion when people were talking about all the work put in behind the scenes of this case it really show me how much effort and time that is really used into this project. With that I hope everyone is truly pleased with the great work they did and i would like to thank Dr. Maclin, for making this class so outstanding and awesome, great job.
As an attorney I really got into this trial. I am kind of upset that alot of people from the class seem to think that the prosecution was slacking or in some way didnt have as much "heart" in the case. This is completely false. It is agrivating to read some of these posts. If you guys think you could have done better, than be my guest. Mackenzee and I worked our tails of and put alot of effort and research into our roles as the prosecutors. I understand that the Defense won (and they did do a really good job) but i feel like Mackenzee and I arent being given enough credit. The purpose of these blogs was to reflect on YOUR job too not just make the prosecution side feel stuipd. What i found interesting was that not a single juror thought Nathan was guilty. This was suprising, because although the defense DID present reasonable doubt... what about his FINGERPRINTS on the weapon, the DNA on the envelope, him being AT THE SCENE of the crime, and having the handwritings look SOO similar. I really appreciataed Aleah's comment after the truth was revealed because Mackenzee and I were somewhat confused as to what we could have done to better prove Nathan did it. We had to go up against Kolton who did a really great job so it was difficult. But i was really supprised that not a single juror thought that the EVIDENCE would be incriminating enough. Over all, this was a really fun experience for me because Mackenzee was really great to work with. However, it was really frustrating at times also because i know we both felt personally attacked in some of these blogs. just so everyone knows, we DID put our hearts into this trial and we DID try our hardest. sometimes the law just doesnt work in favor of the honest/innocent people. ANYWAY. Psychology definitely played a big part in this trial because the defense did a good job of getting into the minds and hearts of the jurors. They played Nathan off as a sweet kind and innocent man, and it worked. Social psychology was evident throughout the entire trial. Perception played a key role in the jurors decision to vote not guilty. As an attorney, when i was asking the questions i used psychology to really mold the answers that i wanted from the people testifying. All in all, this was so much fun and im really glad i took this class. Hopefully everyone appreciates how much hard work really went into the whole trial.
I was really looking forward to the last day of trial. I was really very curious to hear the closing statements and watch how each side i.e., the defense and prosecution try to convince the jury what they were saying was true. The trial started with the closing statements by the prosecution who stated each and every fact against the defendant and reminded and repealed the list of evidence against the defendant and how crucial they were. They also once again reminded the jury of the witness’s statement against the defendant so the jury is able to recall everything the prosecution presented against the defendant. Basically they made every effort from start to end to prove that the defendant was guilty. Next was the turn of the defense. Defense also basically presented a summary of the facts that they had been stating in the last three trials to prove the innocence of the victim. The most powerful and convincing aspect that I consider was really impactful from both these closing statements was by the defense when the defense stated sympathy towards the victim but at the same time arose the feeling of sympathy for the defendant by providing the jurors and the audience with the mental picture of the circumstances and the burden of convicting and innocent person i.e., the defendant.
After the closing statement the judge addressed the jury and stated the various aspects that the jury has to keep in mind while deliberating and making their decision. After that it was the time for the jury to actual deliberate and gives their decision. The audience,the judge ,the prosecution ,defense and the defendant all exit the room where the jury deliberated and made their decision but the only person that could stay with the jury while they were deliberating was the court assistant and luckily that was the role assigned to me for this trial.More than anyone else I was excited to know the actual decision of the jury.Even tho0ough I coukd overhear the members of the jusy I knew that my duty as a court assistant did not allow me to participate and in any way affect their decision. It was a little hard not to participate in their discussion and not provide my point of view to the jury as even I had heard each and every argument for and against the victim and even seen every evidence for and against the victim.
After 30 minutes of jury deliberation cam the time of the actual decision. When the jury would pass on their decision to the judge and the moment all of the people involved in the case had been waiting for. The judge announced the decision of the jury which held the defendant “not guilty” .This made the defense happy and the disappointment on the faces of the prosecution could be seen. I thought the jury had made the correct decision. As mentioned in class even though in real trials no one ever comes not know i.e. to be 100% sure that the decision of the jury/judge was right, we could know in this case as even though it was almost like a real trial but in reality was a mock trial. When everyone got the know the reality it was shocking to know that the defendant was in fact guilty of the crime ,that the guilty person was let go.
This trial gave me a true picture of reality and real trials and proceedings. It made me think how many times in the past a guilty person has been let go only because of the lack of the evidence against him/her and a good defense. Not only this but how many times in the past, present and future has an innocent person being convicted of the crime they never committed. In conclusion, this class and the mock trial were an invaluable experience and increased and enhanced my knowledge about different aspects pertaining to psychology and law. There is so much new information and facts that I know today and never knew prior to taking this class and the mock trial was an aspect of this class which provided me with the practical knowledge about both the aspects ie,how psychology and law are related.
I LOVED this class. It truly is the best class as far as being hands on and interesting and every aspect of it that I have taken and probably will take! I really got into my role and it was a great mock trial to be a part of, seeing that I plan on going to law school. The last day of trial was very exciting. I thought our closing argument really wrapped up the case very nicely and hit all the important aspects of our case. But I will say that Kolton managed to one-up us the entire trial. He was very well prepared and I give him props. He found a way to discredit all of our witnesses and build up his case as well. We tried hard to bring it back, but the damage was done. I will also say that I'm very proud/impressed that Maquel and I had the whole story right. We figured that made the most sense and decided to go with it and I guess we got it right...the evidence just got torn apart. I knew that we had lost when the jury went into deliberate. I figured that one person would say something and everyone would go along with it. Kolton had created too much doubt. I'm not mad about the outcome of the case, just disappointed that we didn't win. I think that our evidence was in our favor and the fingerprints were a good enough match to eliminate our other suspects to leave Nathan, but I don’t think the jury got past Kolton’s side of the story. Maquel and I did the best we could so there's nothing to be mad about and she was great to work with and helped distribute the work load so no one had too much to do! We worked very well together. I think the prosecution did a great job but I don’t think anyone else seems to realize the hard work that we put into this case too. Just because we didn’t win doesn’t mean that we didn’t work hard…we had a HUGE burden to prove and I felt like we did a great job trying to do so. I also wanted to say that Adam did a great job as the judge. He was very good at responding to objections and presiding over the case. While his instructions on the final day were long and boring...he did a good job in his role. For the most part I feel like everyone really got into their roles and I think that made the case much more realistic and more enjoyable to be a part of.
A lot of our case relied on things that in class we had discussed may not have been as accurate as everyone once thought. The eyewitness testimony could have been tainted depending on the view of the crime. Our expert witness was ripped to shreds and our other witnesses like CSI was based on fingerprints which could be subjective depending on who looks at them. I can’t imagine being on a real jury. I would have a very difficult time going into a case being open-minded. I also thought that social psychology was a major part of this case. The way the defense spun their case to get Nathan to look like a good guy and the police/detectives to seem shady and secretive really played into people’s perceptions of another. Even Nathan got into his role as Cass Nova and got into the police's head to try to turn people against each other. Psychology is such a huge part of the Criminal Justice System that I NEVER thought about before this class. Thank you Dr. MacLin for creating such an enjoyable class and all the hard work you put into it getting it going.
Throughout this class I learned a lot of interesting information that I really didn't know before, I also got a better understanding of some of the general information I did know.
The last day of the trial was pretty boring, but interesting. Learning that they let a guilty man go free was really a bummer. I knew he was guilty and felt that if I had been put on the stand or my crime scene photos had been shown, it could have done a lot to correct the conviction. If this were a real trial, I would hope the prosecution would gather more evidence and retry the case, without a double jeopardy or mistrial.
Getting to learn how some of the other think after the process is something that obviously doesn't happen in real life, but it gives you a different outlook on things.
This class was truly a fun experience and gives me the confidence that I'm on the right track towards the career I want to be in. It was really fun to learn all the different subjects we touched base on.
If you need any help next semester, let me know! :)
As a juror I was very excited for the final day. Where I got to see what the others jurors thought and what the conviction would end up. Guity or not guilty. Of 2nd degree murder or mansaughter. When we first got together as a jury we decided it would be best to write on pieces of paper guilty or not guilty and go from there. After the tally's were marked it was recognized that everyone put not guilyt. We then all laughed to ourselfs because one, that was way too easy of a jury deliberation and 2, everyone was worried they were going to be the only person that put not guilty. After that we then discussed why. We said they were not enough evience. We had doubt with all of it. None of it seemed like it was 100% proof especially when there were other suspects that were never even questioned. How were we supposed to know if this person on the stand did it. do to that that is why we all decided not guily. the defense attorney also did a great job defending him. Even though we did find out Nathan was actually guilty, the defense attorney did too good of a job for us to think otherwise. Overall, I think the mock trial was a lot of fun. I really enjoyed it. I do wish it could have lastd longer. But that is ok. Overall, a ton of fun!
I was impressed how our final day went. It was a little boring to sit there and hear all the fine details but it was expected and kept it realistic. Honestly, I was back on forth whether the defendant was guilty or not. But I had a feeling due to the evidence he could not be convicted beyond reasonable doubt. I am not sure what the prosecution could have done differently. They did a terrific job. As did the defense, both jobs would have been tough! We saw just how back and forth a trial can go. At what point one side is ahead but two minutes later the other is looking better. I thoroughly enjoyed our trial and would recommend this class to anyone!!
It was CRAZY (good crazy not bad crazy)!!! The prosecutors and the defense attorneys did SOO well! Even though I was a part of the investigation and did believe we had the right guy, there were times I questioned if we did or not. I did kind of guess that the verdict would come back not guilty. There is so much that was left out of the case that it almost wasn’t fair. I know trials have to be fair but I think that if we had more time (and everyone was truly trained in their field) that the trail would have gone more in-depth. When I was on a jury trial they had everyone there, even the cops whose only role was that they were called to the scene to transport a person who was already arrested.
When Nathan said he did do it, it was kind of a relief for me. Mostly because I had been in on the investigation since day 1 and to know that all the hard work that most of the police department put into this paid off. He got away with murder, but to know that we had tracked down the right guy felt good (and not some other person that had nothing to do with it). He really kept to his innocence. His story never waived of “I’m innocent!” I’m the kind of person that can laugh about this mostly because Beth is actually fine and nobody actually got hurt, but to see the jury’s reaction was kind of funny. They were so shock even though they were SO sure we had the right guy. Then, when he was explaining the story behind the murder it was almost word for word what the prosecution was saying all along. But that happens, jurors don’t know everything that is going on, evidence is throughout, viewpoints are skewed, and innocent people are sent to jail while the guilty walk free.
This can really affect people psychologically because in reality, people really are killed and people are sent to prison (or even death row) for the rest of their lives. It is very hard to have this kind of decision put on you and being looked at as someone who has to make a life altering decision for someone else. And then if they are later proven wrong (new DNA evidence) then they will have to carry around the knowledge that they chose wrong.
I think the jury was most affected by class. We spent all semester looking at different types of evidence and the different advantages and disadvantages of that evidence. I just couldn’t shake the feeling that they had their minds made up about halfway through the trail. But that is what happens out in the real world.
I was on the jury for the trial which lasted about 4 days, we delivered the not guilty verdict last Wednesday feeling confident with our decision as a jury, we had all agreed right off the bat that the prosecution did not have enough evidence to support their theory, little did we know we were the ones who we were wrong, he was guilty of the murder of Beth on Valentine’s Day. We had thought that not seeing any crime scene photos or even knowing where in the Union the murder took place it was hard to really know, the witnesses did not have much input, the handwriting and analysis and CSI really didn’t do much to help us believe or see much evidence to be able to convict him. I had fun with the trial, but wasn’t into it as much as other’s, it upset me when we found out he was guilty and pretty much got “had.” But in the end I can see why it can be so hard to really know what to believe in a case like this. Everyone did a great job, especially the lawyers who fought hard! Nathan was a great actor, his girlfriend’s testimony helped make him seem like a great guy. Next time I would like to be a character witness, then the weight of the verdict wouldn’t be on my shoulders.
I thought the trial was really interesting. I'm glad I got to particiapte in it, especially since the defense won! Being a character witness in a mock trial was very nerve racking, so I really don't want to testify in a real trial any time soon! I thought that the closing arguements were really good. I felt bad for the prosecution because just about everything they tried to argue was true. The defense did such a good job at manipulating the situation that the prosecution didn't have enough evidence to put Nathan away.
The final day of trial was definitely a very exciting and nervous one for me. As a part of the investigation, I was feeling a little rocky about what the jury would come back with. I think the defense did a great job at raising reasonable doubt. I was confident that we had the right guy, but the defense’s witnesses really crushed the prosecution’s testimony. I think both sides did well, but I was really not surprised to hear the jury come back not guilty. I did not realize how many instructions the judge had to give to the jury before they could deliberate. I think that would be a very boring part for the judge. I thought the whole atmosphere of the trial was very professional. I think it gave us a great look into how a real trial happens, although I’m sure there would be more deliberation. I do think that our class information might have swayed the jury. Learning what we learned is bound affect the cognitive processes of the jury, especially when being presented with information that we discussed might not be too reliable. I think the fact that the prosecution had a handwriting expert (which we learned was not extremely reliable) had a profound effect. The defense was able to discount the handwriting expertise and I think even if they didn’t that the jury would not have given it much weight because of what we’ve learned. The defenses use of the fingerprint expert was interesting. I was not convinced that an 8 point match can only be used to eliminate suspects. However, it was able to bring doubt into the minds of the jurors, again probably because of the information we have learned about it in class. I think the general public who are jurors in real cases do not have the knowledge we do. I am not sure if that helps or hinders accurate convictions.
It is clear that almost every aspect of psychology and law that we have discussed came into play in this case and trial. I think one interesting point that we discussed was the things that affect eyewitness accuracy, such as lighting, exposure, etc. I think this played into the jurors’ decisions. I also think that cognitive psychology is important as we have discussed. The inability of the jurors to see the crime scene affected their abilities to understand exactly what went on, who could have ran, etc. I thought our discussion at the end of the day really helped us understand how psychology is involved in all aspects. This class was wonderful and I can’t wait to TA in the fall :)
I’m still a little terrified that Nathan made such a good murderer…
Finally, the culmination of a semester and the answer we have all been waiting for. We began with closing statements, I thought Mackenzee did well, I just felt that some of the things she said they really couldn’t establish in court. As for the defenses closing, sorry if anyone had trouble understanding me, my mouth began to feel like a desert, and I started to speed trough it. I thought the substance was there, but could have been a better presentation. In the closing, I again tried to reiterate the reasonable doubt that was presented throughout the trial. I also attempted to make it more personal to the jury, letting them know that a man’s life and liberty is going to be decided by them. Following this the judge read the long and daunting jury instructions and then we moved on to the deliberation.
At the end of the trial I felt confident, because I kept telling myself we only need on person to say not guilty. But you can never be a hundred percent sure. It was nerve racking waiting outside in the hallway, but I had to remember that my part was over and I couldn’t do anymore, it was up to the jury now. I was happy to see the jury come back early, I knew we had instilled enough reasonable doubt to at least get some serious discussion going and if not there must have been enough jurors to say not guilty and come to a verdict quickly, but again you can’t be to sure.
When the foreperson said not guilty to both charges it was a huge relief, all of our hard work had paid off. The discussion following was very interesting as well. I was relieved and happy to hear that not a single jury member found him guilty and that they also wrote down their first unanimous vote on secret pieces of paper that way no one would be swayed by the votes of others, this was a very good idea. I obviously think the jury was right, but I think it is a testament to their decision making, that they voted unanimously not guilty. I’m not going to lie it did feel good winning and it felt even better when everyone found out that he was guilty, but we were still able to get him off. One question I would have liked to ask the prosecution, was why murder 2 and not first degree, the mask and weapon kind of show that it was premeditated, I wondered if there was a specific reason to go with murder 2? I had one question directed at me by Colleen and it really got me thinking. The question was how do you feel knowing you let an innocent man go free and I have always accepted the old adage which Ms. MacLin stated, that it was my job, but this time it really didn’t resonate with me and I wanted to answer it more clearly. I began thinking and realized what a sham our legal system would be if every person wasn’t put through this stringent process. What if the police and our legal system weren’t held to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, innocent people would be wrongly convicted as well and I would rather let ten guilty men go free then convict an innocent men. When thinking about serious issues like this, I try and myself in the other persons shoes. Now pretend for a second this was a real trial and you were in Nathan’s position, wouldn’t you want someone relentlessly fighting for you guilty or not?
With that said, I hope I didn’t offend anyone, I was only trying to do my job and do it to the best of my ability. Although some people didn’t approve of me, I can honestly say that I had a great time, it was a great hands on experience, and all of the people I worked and interacted with made the process really fun and easy. I would like to give a shout out to a few people in particular, first off Ben. After talking and conversing with Ben he seems like a really cool guy and although I don’t like that I had to do that, it was for the case. So I hope there’s no hard feelings Ben. Next Judge Heil and the Macks (prosecution team) as I secretly call them in my head. Adam did a great job, even though he disagreed with me on a couple of occasions and it was really fun to battle with the Macks, they did a good job and were a good sports about everything. It was also fun getting to know a complete stranger in Nathan, he’s a great guy and fun to work with, definitely not a murderer. Finally, thanks to Ms. MacLin, this experience was awesome I loved it, don’t change a thing, except for maybe the pitchers of water you suggested ha.
Lastly psychology, I felt like a puppet master psychologically manipulating the prosecution, witnesses, and the jury. Haha, just kidding for the most part.