This essay should show your developing knowledge of your role in the mock crime/trial. You should discuss and describe what you are continuing to learn about your role. If you role has been engaged in the class project already, make sure to discuss your experience (without divulging case-sensitive information!)
Role Essay 3: due Thursday 4/12 @ midnight
No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://www.psychologicalscience.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/2655
Each and every one of our roles in the upcoming trial is becoming more and more important as the days count down. Everyone’s role is just as important as the next persons. During the class, I have really realized that in the Criminal Justice system EVERY role is important. For example, a witness’ role is just as important as an attorney’s role. As we have seen, if one person does not take their role in the criminal justice system seriously enough, errors can occur and allow guilty people walk away and put innocent people into prison.
With that being said, my role in our mock trial is a prosecutor. For most of the semester, I was not really involved. All I could do is wait and wait for the crime to occur (which was pretty exciting), and from there wait for the detectives to put together a case. About two weeks ago, I got my first chance to become involved. The other prosecutor and I met with one of the detectives and reviewed the evidence that has been collected. We discussed with the detective possible theories of what might have happened. Although I cannot share any of the information that we discussed, I must say, this is going to be an interesting trial! The next chance to get involved came a few weeks ago when the judge, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and a few “witnesses” all played out a trial. The trial was a real case that took place in Colorado. I found it pretty hard to read the opening and closing statements because of the way that it was worded. I think the best part of this experience was that we got to see how the attorneys actually talked with the witnesses. Last week, I got another chance to start working towards building a case. The other prosecutor and I met with the detectives again and sat for a few hours at the library. We went over the evidence over and over again trying to play out every scenario possible in our heads. After meeting, we realized that the trial is in a few weeks and that we really need to get a move on with our case. After a few hours of brainstorming, we came up with a possible scenario that could have happened. Of course, we can’t be quite sure, but we are going to be contacting some people and getting more information in order to build our case.
Another experience that allowed me to see what my role is going to be like was the courthouse visit. This might have been the best experience I’ve had in the class so far because it was REAL LIFE and I got to see how the prosecutors ACTUALLY work. I strongly believe that you can sit in a classroom and learn all about something, but you will never actually know that much about it until you see it yourself. This works with a lot of things in life. For example, you can learn all about a different country; but how much do you really know about that country until you go and visit it yourself? At the courthouse the prosecutor that we saw was a middle aged woman who did not say a whole lot. She seemed kind of annoyed that we were asking her questions, but she did tell us some pretty cool information. She told us that sometimes she has to hold witnesses in contempt of court because they won’t come and testify.
So, a prosecutor is an attorney that either works for the state or federal government. Prosecutors represent the “people” and “justice.” A prosecutor main goal is to prove that the defendant committed a crime and obtain a “Guilty” verdict from the jury. As a prosecutor, you can work at a county, state, or federal level. Detectives will bring a case to the district attorney and present the evidence that has been collected so far. From there, the prosecutor decides if there is enough evidence to prosecute the defendant(s). One important part of a prosecutor’s job is that they decide what exact charges the person is being accused of. For example, in a case in which someone has deceased, the prosecuting attorney will decide whether the person being accused is being charged with 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, and so on. The District Attorney is an elected public official. Since it a constitutional right for everyone to have a speedy trial, once the suspect has been arrested the prosecutor has about 72 hours to file the charges.
Unfortunately, and surprisingly our book does not really talk a whole lot about attorneys. Most of the information that I have collected about the role of a prosecutor has been from the internet and from class. One website that describes the role of a federal prosecutor quite well, and is very easy to understand (probably because it was created for children) is the following:
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/kidspage/prosecutor.html
This website lists the steps of a Federal Prosecutors job. Although the website was made by the government for children, I think it is great to show even adults how exactly the process works. In order to be a United States Attorney, you must be appointed by the president. After that, congress must pass it.
I was pretty interested in what kind of money a prosecutor makes, especially in our area. I decided to look up the wages of Polk County Prosecutors. Of the ones that I found, the actual prosecutors made about $100,000 a year, while the assistant prosecutors made about $50,000 a year. I think that these are pretty fair wages considering the cost of living in Iowa. Here is where I found the salaries of Polk County employees (this website could be useful for others because it also lists detective salaries as well) :
http://php.news-leader.com/DBTools/Search.php?Page=4&SortBy=Name&PageID=237&Button1=Next+Page%3E%3E
An issue that I was always interested in was the issue of how the prosecutor decides to pursue the charges or not. I knew that whether or not to pursue charges was always at the discretion of the District Attorney but I wasn’t sure how they actually decided. Assuming there is enough evidence to prosecute, how does a district attorney decide to prosecute? One way that they decide to charge is policies for certain crimes. This is usually the result of community pressure and every case involving the crime at hand is pursued the same way. Let’s say, for example a community wants to put murders to trial, then the district attorney would never offer a plea bargain. Sadly, another way that prosecutors decide to pursure charges is whether it will help them in an upcoming election. We live in a society that is completely politically motivated. If a District Attorney feels that they will have an upper hand in getting reelected because they prosecuted a crime, they will most likely pursue charges. The final way that a prosecutor decides is the way that they feel. If they feel that justice needs to be served in a certain case, they will most likely pursue charges. After a prosecutor has decided to pursue charges, they must bring their case either in front of a grand jury, or to a preliminary hearing. The way a grand jury works is the prosecutor will call witnesses and present evidence showing the grand jury that they believe there is enough evidence to convict. The grand jury can either vote “True-Bill” or “No-Bill”. Even if the grand jury votes “No-Bill”, the prosecutor can still sometimes file charges later against the suspect. A prelminatry hearing is basically the same without a jury. The prosecutor presents evidence to the judge showing that the state has enough evidence to file charges against an individual. I found the above information at an awesome legal website:
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/charged-with-crime-how-29677.html
One thing that I noticed is that there are tons of famous athletes, famous scientists, and famous writers; but there are practically no famous lawyers that MOST people know about. This sparked an interest and I decided to look up some of America’s most “famous” prosecutors. I found an article entitled “8 Prosecutors You Do Not Want to Face in Court”. It was a very interesting article because even though I had never heard of any of the actual prosecutors, I usually knew the people that they were prosecuting. (e.g. OJ Simpson; Charles Manson; John Wayne Gacy; Scott Petersen).
http://www.courtreporterschool.org/blog/2010/8-prosecutors-you-dont-want-to-face-in-court/
To summarize my role in the trial, I am responsible for representing the “state.” I will take the evidence that the police and detectives have collected and decide whether or not I would like to pursue charges against the perpetrator. (I’m assuming for the trial to work that I have no other choice but to pursue charges). Along with the other prosecuting attorney, I will decide which charges need to be filed for the crime that has been committed. A warrant for the suspect’s arrest will be granted and the suspect will be arrested. After that, I have around 72 hours to file the charges. The other prosecutor and I will present the evidence and our case to a judge at a preliminary hearing. If the judge finds that we have enough evidence then the suspect will stand trial.
I am very satisfied with the role that I picked and wish to continue learning more and more about it. As far as a future career as a prosecutor, I haven’t decided yet. I have learned that it can be a very interesting and sometimes exciting job, but can also be very stressful. I strongly think that if you are someone who can distance yourself from your work, and not get too emotionally involved that this job would be perfect. If you can handle the stress of the occupation, the salary will be well worth it.
I have yet to be a part of this mock trail. I am one of the defense attorneys and I am getting really excited to be a part of the trial. It is starting to get a little nerve wrecking because I still haven’t gotten a call or anything asking for my help to defend someone. Our trial starts in less than a week and it is starting to set it that I have a lot of work ahead of me. Throughout the year I was getting more and more excited as the process went on. When the crime happened I was pretty happy because it meant that my part was getting closer. I did think that I would have been brought in by now, but I have a feeling it will happen soon.
One thing that we have done in class that gave me a look into the defense attorney spot was the documentary we watched. It was pretty interesting to me to see what they all did. I didn’t know that defense attorneys basically did their own research and experiments to see what they could do to create a story or disprove the persecutors story. I will take that into consideration when I get my client so that we can put together our side of what happened. In the documentary you could tell that it takes a lot of time to get all the information together and to go through the trial process. I can tell that I will be feeling the same way when I get to that point.
Another thing that I have learned about being a defense attorney was about the death penalty. I learned some information on how it works. This has more to do with the persecutors, but it is still good to know just in case I have to defend against it. Since my last essay we have actually covered a good amount of information on how a court runs. Some things that I have learned are that the defense attorney places a part in selecting the jury. What they do with the juries is the following: they can use peremptory challenges and can use challenges for cause. Even though it is good to understand this I really won’t be able to use it in the mock trial.
In preparation for the trial the defense attorney comes up with a plausible explanation for the crime, multiple stories because they don’t have to prove that there client didn’t do just that there is reasonable doubt, look for disconfirming evidence, and they have to use creative and divergent thinking. Also they come up with testimony evidence and tangible evidence. This will be very important for me because of all the documentation that has to occur. Testimony evidence can be from any of the people on the stand like the witnesses, experts, CSI, sketch artist, police officer, and the detectives. Those people though can be used to bring out the tangible evidence like maps, weapons, photographs, sketches, reports, diagrams, or other types of exhibits.
http://mocktrialblog.com/2011/01/31/mock-trial-opening-statements-for-the-defense-lawyer/
This blog is from a guy who is giving advice on how to be a defense attorney in a mock trial. I found it to be quite helpful. In this blog he first talks about that he defense attorney needs to understand that the goal is to get the client a fair trial. This means that I must be the spokesperson for my client. This blog also talks about how it is hard to prove that someone is completely innocent, but the defenses job is to just raise enough doubt in their minds about whether they did it. In my opening statement I should open with who I am and who I am representing. In the opening statement I should basically point out everything I can that can put some doubt in what the persecutor said. I really just have to keep reminding myself to place doubt in the juries mind because that is what is important in my case. Not to prove anything just to doubt it all and give good evidence to prove that doubt. I also have to make sure to not say anything in my opening statement that I cannot prove later.
http://caught.net/prose/advtt/hbclose.htm
In this website it talks about closing arguments. It says that this is the most important part of the entire trial. It is the last chance to persuade the jury so the presentation has to be strong, fluid, and persuasive. I should avoid the podium because I should instead walk around to show the jury that there is nothing hidden between me and them. I need to look as open and honest as possible. This website also gave me good information like never getting closer than 6 ft. to the jury as to not encroach on their comfort zone and also to have all the informational I need for my closing statement very organized so I am not shuffling through papers. The last thing I took from this paper was to not bring in my own personal beliefs to the closing argument.
I am excited about starting my part of the mock trail!
My role is the role of a character witness, and I am extremely excited to start getting involved in the actual case and our mock trial. It makes me jealous to see the eyewitnesses, detectives, attorneys, etc. getting to participate in the crime. Sometimes it makes me wish I would have chosen a different role, because I honestly would have been happy with pretty much anything and everything. However when my time comes I will definitely be happy to play the role of the character witness.
Tonight I finished reading my book for our book report. It helped me realize from a very different standpoint how important the role of a character witness can be. My book summarized in a short sentence: A woman gets sentenced to year in prison for a crime she committed over ten years ago. In the book she has tons of people, friends, family, coworkers, etc. write letters to the judge in order to get a less severe sentence. These people were all her character witnesses. Initially when I started my research, I didn’t know that writing letters was the more common form of being a character witness. Since my character witness role in our mock trial will actually be taking place in court, I ignored this type of character witness. However after reading about it in an actual context I became more interested in the process. These character witnesses were obviously on the side of the defense, and talked about the defendant’s character. They talked about what a different person she was from ten years prior and what an amazing person she was. This made me want to do more research on character witness letters and if they have any leeway in the actual process of a trial and the sentencing.
http://www.characterreferenceletters.com/character_reference_letter_for_court.php
The above site is an actual character witness letter, or character reference letter as it is also commonly referred to, that you can just fill in the blanks when writing to a judge. I found this very interesting. Though I believe it is a good idea for those who struggle with writing and maybe even reading, I find it to be very impersonal. This letter is supposed to be vouching for the defendant’s character, yet you need a template in order to be able to do so? If I were a judge and receiving a letter that used a template, I don’t even know if I would bother reading it. If you don’t know the person well enough to be able to write a one paged letter to a judge pleading on their behalf, then I would feel like you didn’t know the person well enough to be able to convey to me their character.
From the same website, they have tips for someone writing a character reference letter rather than a worksheet where you can just fill in the blanks. I believe this is a much better idea than the template and could be very useful. Writing a character witness is hard due to the fact that there is so much pressure. This letter could ultimately make or break someone you know very well and care about. In the tips section of this website, there are “three p’s” to follow. Be Positive, Be Personal, Be Proactive. Being positive is an obvious aspect to the letter. We are trying to talk about the POSTIVE side to the defendant’s character. Therefore being negative at all in the letter will really do you no good. Be personal is the next “P”, and I briefly mentioned this in my above tirade. You need to show the judge that you are capable of making a character reference because you know the person well enough to do so. Being personal will show the judge that you are close enough to the defendant at hand to know that you have some validity in your letter. Finally, being proactive in your letter was one thing I wasn’t aware of until writing this blog and doing some research. Being proactive means helping the defendant become an even better person than what she or he already is. It means taking a “proactive” role in his or her life in order to help them become the best law-abiding citizen he or she can be.
Although I have a much deeper knowledge on character references and like them more than I originally did when only briefly reading about them, I am still very excited that I actually get to testify in our mock trial rather than just writing a letter to the judge. I am anxious to find out if I will be a character witness for the prosecutors or for the defendant. I really wanted to be a character witness for the prosecuting side, but now after reading my book and doing more research, I think I’d like being a character witness for either side.
As the trial looms closer I am beginning to understand just how important it is for every member of the criminal justice system to play his or her role effectively. Communication between these members seems to be the most important. It’s important that everybody is on the same page. Not only must we communicate among our coworkers, such as detectives communicating with detectives, we must also branch out and share information with others. From my standpoint as sketch artist I have noticed that the detectives and the prosecutors are two roles that work closely together. The prosecutor gets the majority of their information from detectives. The clues and the interviews that the detectives conduct help them in creating their case. My role as a sketch artist doesn’t come into play until the prosecutor has time to evaluate the evidence detectives provide for them. If the prosecutors decide that they don’t have enough evidence or need a different kind of evidence, then they can call on me to help.
At this point I have played a role within the mock trial. At first I was a little confused whether I was supposed to be proactive and offer my expertise to the attorneys or if they were supposed to come find me. So at first it was just a waiting came. I waited for the prosecutors to figure out what evidence they had and if they needed something more. I gave them my contact information to let them know who I was and how to reach me if they needed by assistance. I think this is very representative of what a real sketch artist does. Most of them do not work within the police department. Usually detectives and police reach them and ask them to draw a sketch if it is deemed necessary. In this case it was a little frustrating because I didn’t want to wait till the last minute to get a sketch drawn and to interview the witnesses. Interviewing the witnesses was probably the most problematic thing for me. In my previous role essays I reported that a sketch is most accurate when the sketch artist can interview the witness right after the crime. If too much time has elapsed then the witnesses memory may be distorted and then ultimately they would give me inaccurate information. Knowing this is what caused me to be a little anxious. I knew that if I wanted to get an accurate sketch that I would need to interview the witnesses soon. Luckily after waiting a little bit I was contacted and asked to create a sketch.
Originally the prosecutors gave me their own notes from what they witnesses could recall about the perpetrator. I found that their notes were not very helpful because they didn’t contain any information that would be helpful for a sketch. I think that a sketch artist asked eyewitnesses different questions than what a police officer would or a detective. This is mainly because a sketch artist is concerned with just the face of the perpetrator. It was probably best anyway that I interview the witnesses myself instead of solely going off of the detective’s and police’s interviews. I also tried to interview the witnesses separately that way one witness’s memories would not be influenced by another.
I am not a talented artist and some people are under the impression that I will be free drawing the sketch that I provide as evidence. I will actually be using a software system to create the facial sketch. This software is used by many police departments and sketch artists. Such as in this case, this software does not need to be used by somebody who is a talented drawer. Software gives the profession of sketch artist a new meaning. Sketch artists are no longer in high demand the way they used to be because police could use this software without the help of sketch artists. As I have noticed in the mock trial, sketch artists must also be ready immediately. The conditions under which they work are filled with many deadlines. When a sketch artist is contacted by a detective or attorney their sketch is usually needed immediately.
http://diplomaguide.com/articles/Sketch_Artist_Career_Summary.html
The software that I am using to create the sketch is called FACES 3.0. This is an older version because now they have FACES 4.0. This software is the most commonly used for facial composites. They have a number of options to choose form when you are trying to create the sketch. I was very surprised to learn that the task of recreating a face is very daunting. I don’t usually pay too close of attention to the shape of somebody’s head, or the shape of their forehead lines. I really wonder how possible it is for a sketch artist to create a good sketch of the perpetrator. It seems to me that it would be a miracle if witnesses say that much detail on the perpetrator.
http://www.facesid.com/support_faqs.html
I am one of the prosecuting attorneys for the mock trial. It's a lot different than what I actually expected. It wasn't until three weeks after the crime occurred that we got any information about the crime. I was very excited to get started working on the case, and I had a lot of anticipation waiting for the detectives to contact us. Once we obtained some of the evidence the case started going better. The detectives, the other prosecuting attorney, and I got together to look over the evidence and started brainstorming ideas of what could of happened. Once we got more information we all met again in the library for a couple of hours. This meeting was much more productive, and we got a lot figured out. I can't say much more about we discussed without revealing case sensitive information. After our meeting the prosecutors had to wait for the detectives to contact possible suspects to get more information for the case. I got to go with them the for the first interview. This was interesting because I did not know what to expect and I think it went really well.
I am really excited to get the suspect arrested so we can get the work for the actual trial going. I am ready to start getting our case together to present at trial. I am interested in actually presenting our case to the jury, and trying to persuade them towards the prosecution. This is what I have been looking forward to all semester.
Another big thing I have been working on is researching the different charges so I know which one will work best for our case. Each murder charge has requirements the prosecutors have to prove during the trial to win. First degree murder has to be deliberate, premeditated, and have malice aforethought. The murderer has to of thought about killing the person before the actual killing occurs. A first degree murder charge can also be used when it happens during another crime. If a person kills somebody during a robbery, rape, or arson they will be charged with first degree murder. Second degree murder is a non-premeditated murder. It usually happens during an assault where death is a good possibility. Manslaughter doesn't require malice aforethought. It is not as serious as a murder charge. There are two types of manslaughter, voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary manslaughter is an intential murder, but with mitigating factors that make it manslaughter instead of murder. Involuntary manslaughter is killing somebody without intent. It does not come from heat of passion like voluntary manslaughter often does. Instead, involuntary manslaughter usually occurs due to recklessness while performing lawful or unlawful acts like misdemeanors.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Second+degree+murder
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/manslaughter
Prosecuting attorneys work on the local, regional, or national level. They usually work for the government, and are working to convict the criminal and seek justice. They are sometimes are called the "minister of justice". Prosecutors are not allowed to bring their personal interests into court. Prosecutors represent the community and work towards the best interest of the public. There are five parts of a court trial, and a prosecutor plays a major role in each step. First is jury selection. The number of jurors who actually come to court vary on how many people were asked, how many had an interfence so they couldn't make it, and the few who just don't show up. The prosecutor gets to weed out jurors they don't like by using challenges of cause and peremtory challenges. After they are down to 12 jurors the trial begins. The secong step are the opening statements. In the opening statement the prosecutor gives a speech to present some of the evidence they will show the jury to try to prove the defendants guilt. The third and fourth step is direct examination and cross examination. The prosecutor gets to call the first witness, and ask them all the questions they need to. After they are done questioning them the defense has a chance to cross-examine the witness. This process continues until all the prosecutor's witnesses have been called, and then the defense gets to call their witnesses. The final step in a court trial process is the closing arguement. A closing arguement is when a prosecutor gives another speech to the jury summarizing what the witnesses have said and the importance of their evidence, and why they think it is important to convict the defendant. With all this being said it is very important that a prosecutor does not try to get a conviction at all costs, but to seek justice so that no innocent person is wrongfully convicted.
http://www.america.gov/st/usg-english/2009/July/20090706174555ebyessedo0.8992731.html
I can’t believe we have already come to this point in the semester as it is almost time for the trial to begin. Many of the roles in the trial are starting to become more and more critical. Many people have been involved with the case for a couple of weeks now but some have still yet to be deeply involved. I am a member of the jury and we have yet to really get involved in the case. Tuesday of next week will be when us jury members really get a chance to make a difference in the case. It is next Tuesday when the jury selection process begins. This should be interesting as I have learned a lot about this process this semester. I’m not sure if the jury selection process in our class will follow along with that of that actual judicial system but if it does it should be interesting.
As I have learned through this class the jury selection process begins by coming up with a jury pool. The jury pool is often a list of the members of the community and from this list random people are selected. You can be on the list by a variety of ways such as your driver’s license or voter registration information, for example. People are randomly selected from this list then and summoned to court and put on a jury panel. Here, the panel is asked a variety of questions which is known as von dire. Questions are asked to see if you have any bias and just if you are the right person to be on the actually jury. There are two ways prospective jury members can be rejected or not put on the final jury. The first way is known as “challenge for cause.” Under this idea the juror may be released because he or she may have a bias that would not allow for a fair trial. For example, the person may actually know the defendant. The second way is known as “peremptory challenge.” Under this idea the prosecution and or the defense can dismiss the potential juror without giving a reason. Once the final jury has been selected by the defense and prosecution the trial is ready to begin.
The actual trial for our class begins the 24th. As far as the jury is concerned this is where all of the evidence from the crime will be presented. The juries job, as I have learned, is to pay very close attention the all the evidence and information presented during the trial. We are supposed to not assume anyone to be innocent or guilty until all of the evidence has been given. I am interested to learn what our case is all about. When both the prosecution and defense have both spoken and given all the evidence the judge gives jury instructions. As Dr. Maclin said in class, these instructions are not always that easy to understand. There are a lot of difficult legal terms used that many jurors may not understand. I’m interested to hear these instructions because they tell the jury exactly what they need to do in coming together on a verdict. I haven’t really learned from class what the instructions say so I did a little researched.
As I learned from the link below jury instructions are very detailed and structured. They are instructions from the judge to the jury about all of the rules they must follow. Interestingly, they are not all the same as most of them relate to the specific case that is at hand. I learned that there are more instructions than just at the end of the trial. I learned that there are preliminary instructions are well. In the preliminary instructions things that could be discussed may be duties of the jury, the nature of the indictment, rules regarding note taking and the outline of the trial. Overall, I just thought it was just really interesting all of the things involved in these jury instructions. http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/instructions.shtml
After we have heard these instructions we will have to deliberate and come to an agreement on whether we think the defendant is guilty or not guilty. In order to find him or her guilty or not guilty we will all have to agree. Otherwise, it will be a hung jury.
My role as the media in our case is becoming quite interesting. I have begun to work one-on-one with a detective, and he has begun the liaison between the police department and the media. I am trying not to overstep my bounds, because it seems like the rest of the police department doesn't want to give out any information about the case whatsoever.
I am learning about how important technology is in the role of the media, because I have to be ready with a camera or a notepad whenever I get new information about the case. Also, video editing is very hard, and that is where I see I am lacking in my role...the press release would have been 10 times better if I had the software to edit the video and make it a little more coherent. Instead, I had to have the detective read everything straight through without being able to stop halfway through or anything.
I am currently struggling with figuring out how to request to have cameras in the courtroom. I do not know who the judge is, or how to contact him/her, or how to officially request to have cameras present in the courtroom. So to the person in charge of grading this, please send me an email (neilsonj@uni.edu) to at least tell me who the judge is so I can get cameras approved before it's too late.
I am excited to see how this trial plays out, as well as to see what new challenges I will face as the media reporter over the next few weeks!
I am really hoping that an anonymous source can come to me and leak information about the case, because that always makes news stories better and gets more people to read them.
My duties as a police officer have come to a standstill in this case. My fellow officer and I responded to the crime scene a few weeks ago. We secured the placement and interviewed a few eyewitnesses present at the scene. However, there hasn’t been much activity on our part sense then. I decided to look into some more aspects of being a police officer that wasn’t really discussed such as stress effects and specific types of officers.
I did a little research on the effects of stress on a police officer. As criminology major, I have taken many classes that encompass the duties of a police officer. We have learned about the job and what it takes to be an officer. However, we never discussed how the job might affect an individual. Being a psychology major too, I am interested to know how the stressfulness of an officer affects their mental and physical state. Officers experience one of the rare jobs that never stay the same. They go from hanging out in a cop car to an extreme flight or fight adrenalin. A police officer also experiences a high degree of anxiety and reduced sense of safety. They are never sure when they can trust an individual or when it is safe. This produces all kinds of negative effects on an individual’s heart and health. Another issue with health on a police officer is their sleep patterns. We all know that sleep is a necessary life function that we all need. Nonetheless, police officers tend to go from monthly shift rotations. They have to adapt from graveyard shift to a normal day setting. Their body rhythms are affected which produces stress on an individual. Many officers are receiving negative attitudes from other officers and society. Women, in particular, experience a lot of disapproval and feelings of incompetence against men in the profession. These are only a few key stressors in a police officer’s happiness in life, but it really affects their life. The article I read state that officers committee more suicides than any other group. They also have the highest divorce rates. One article stated that 60-70% of officers get a divorce. Their stressful events reduce the quality of their family life.
http://www.heavybadge.com/efstress.htm
http://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/police_stress.htm
Next, I decided to look up more information about the different types of police officers. We often throw around titles of officers, but I have never really known what they mean. After reading this article, I never realized the amount of different officers that we have. When I think of a police officer, I just assume they do it all and cluster them all together as a uniformed police officer. However, I was very wrong, especially when it came to the federal system. First, there a special jurisdiction police which work at universities or schools. Next, is sheriffs and deputies. These people are elected to enforce laws on the county level. They do things that are a lot like regular police officers. There are also state police officers. These individuals are known as state troopers or highway patrol officers. They enforce motor vehicle laws and regulations on the highways. They also arrive at auto accident scenes to help direct traffic or assist in first aid. Every state in the USA uses state law enforcement agencies expect for Hawaii. Next are detectives. They are plainclothes investigators that arrive at the scene to collect evidence and gather facts. Sometimes, they specialize in investigating certain type of violation such as homicide. They also have special police officers that enforce fishing, hunting and boating laws. These are all officers on a state level. The federal level also has their own set of police officers.
The FBI is the first organization. They are responsible for looking into federal laws that fall under more than 200 categories. These individuals also investigate threats to the national security. For instance, they examine business records, investigate white-collar crime, or conduct surveillance. The United States also has a Drug Enforcement Administration that deals specifically with drug violations and regulation of illegal drugs. U.S. Marshals protect the federal courts. There is also the Homeland Security that runs things like Customs and Boarder Protection and immigrant paraphernalia. Along with these, there are specific agents for border patrol, immigration inspectors, and custom inspectors. Lastly, there are the Secret Service agents. They investigate offense such as counterfeiting, forgery, and credit card fraud. I would have never guessed that there were certain departments for everything. I guess looking at it now, it’s understandable. You forget about all the things that it takes to keep our country and society safe when you don’t see it on an everyday occurrence living in Iowa.
http://discoverpolicing.org/whats_like/?fa=types_careers
well my role is a member of the jury. And since our last time I blogged I have learned a good bit in both this class and my ethics class. Starting off I would like to discuss the area of jury selection. In both classes i have learned that it might be the most important part of the trial. By this I mean both sides will hire jury consultants and they will do surveys and mock trials in order to fin the best jury members who might tend to favor their side or they will try to get rid of possible jurors who simply might go completely against their side.
Now the jury is very impressionable in court so it is very important to how the defendant is presented. I learned in my ethics class that they will completely change the outter appearance. They might change the hair cut, but what I learned that what might be the most important factor is the color of clothes they wear. all of these things play a role in how a jury views them as being able to commit that crime. The jury is supposed to be impartial is the jury really impartial when so much is stacked during the trial. I have also learned that someone might be able to get a mistrial if the attorney doesnt do everything they can to make sure they get the best jury possible. Right now I believe that the jury is the most important part of the trial because if the jury selection is not taken seriously then the case could be lost right there.
When we first chose our roles I had originally wanted to be the detective or profiler. After pondering on the different roles I realized I had the rest of my educational career to study up on those two professions. I thought about how many people actually got to be eye witnesses. Whoever sees the crime has been given an amazing opportunity and an even greater responsibility. I wanted to be an eye witness for the sole reason that not many people get a chance to be one.
As this project has gone on, many things were enlightened to me which I did not realize were in the jurisdiction, to say, of the eye witness. It never occurred to me exactly how difficult it would be to recall small details of the crime after just a short period of time. Just thinking about eye witnesses who have to testify months and months after the crime occurred frightens me. The idea of being constantly pressed for your memory shows just how easily one's memory recall can alter from their original statement. Just the other day in class another eye witness and myself were discussing with a detective what type of pants the criminal was wearing. Such a minuscule detail could not come back to me, no matter how hard I tried. I couldn't, in good faith, say one way or another. I feel that this is a key factor for an eye witness's testimony; being honest with themselves. If a witness is playing guessing games within their own head then they are not helping anyone. It is a must to admit where you are unsure of some details or even admit that you cannot remember a huge, possibly convicting piece of evidence. If you cannot remember, say so. Do not guess. Trial, especially violent crimes, are serious and life altering matters only to be treated and handled with the utmost care.
My role in this mock case/trial is a crime scene investigator. This is a very important role in a case because without the evidence we collect it would be much more difficult to narrow down suspects and make an arrest. I have not had any further involvement since the last blog and since the crime was committed. Once the crime was reported we showed up at the scene and got started. We inspected the scene of the crime and tried to determine what could possibly be evidence. I took pictures of the body location, position, and wounds. After closer examination of the body I found a note in the victims hand which was processed as evidence. We tested the doors that the perpetrator would have used to exit, for prints. We took more pictures of the blood splatters/stains on the wall and made a diagram of where everything was when we first arrived. After collecting all that evidence we started to document it which proved to be a very tedious process. We brought it to the lab (Professor MacLin) to be tested. We haven't received any further information about the evidence collected. In the upcoming weeks is the trial. I know that crime scene investigators are sometimes called up on the stand to testify. After that, that would be the end of our involvement in the case. My role was very different than I originally thought it would be. I thought it would involve more than just the day of the crime. I learned a lot about CSI's that I never knew before and after performing the roles of a real CSI I realize that I would never want to be a crime scene investigator. I always thought it was more action but it was more documenting than I originally thought and liked.
http://www.feinc.net/cklist.htm
The site above has a CSI checklist. I have not seen anything like this before and it helped me understand more about what is needed for different kinds of crimes. For a burglary the list consists of foot prints, tire tracks, glass standards, hairs and fibers, finger prints, photographs, tool marks, etc. For a homicide the list has the same list as burglary in addition to fingernail scrapings, blood samples, close up photos of wounds, clothing of victim, weapons, etc. And in sexual assault cases there needs to be clothing of victim and suspect, stains, bed linens, all blood stains, sexual assault kit, location of occurrence, etc. http://www.crimesceneinvestigator.com/
I looked into how someone would go about becoming a CSI this is what I found out. Getting a bachelors degree in forensic science. You could go with criminology or criminal justice but forensic science would be your best bet. You must be a police officer first but then you can complete training and apply for a position as a CSI. It will take between six and ten years after you graduate high school to get to a crime scene investigator position. You could expect a salary around 40,000 per year but depending on where you live it could differ.
My role as the baliff has not yet been engaged in the classes mock trial. I haven't really learned anyting new about baliffs, I just know that they are there for the safety of the courtroom and to asist the judge in certain ways when asked to do so. I did learn that in Black Hawk County however that Baliffs in the courthouse are actually sworn Deputy Sheriffs and that before you are not eligible to go on patrol to either you have done that or worked in the jail for ten years. There are ways around that though like if you do something that makes you seem like you can handle patrol there is a chance that you could be moved out to the streets faster than others.
Crime scene investigators have been a topic of great interest for many people over the past few years. Interest in the position has increased a lot because of the t.v. show CSI and its spinoffs such as CSI Miami. While people are fascinated by the duties these individuals fulfill, many don’t really know what goes on in real life. As a CSI for our mock trial, I have had the opportunity to take a shot at being a CSI. Up until now, I have mostly fulfilled my role in our trial for the most part. I do not yet know, however, if I will be called upon to testify in the trial. I decided to look up more information about what CSIs to when they are called to testify.
When crime scene investigators are called upon at trial, they are expected to be able to recount what happened when they arrived at the crime scene, the procedures they followed, and the chain of evidence that started at the beginning of their investigation. Investigators must be able to vouch for each step along the way as the evidence exchanged hands. They must also be able to use pictures from the crime scene to verify where the evidence was when they collected it. Proper collection of the evidence is also another vital step in the process, along with evidence preservation. If these steps are not appropriately followed, they could harm the prosecution’s case and result in a lack of usable evidence. Expert witnesses may then be used to verify the validity of the evidence and what it can be used to determine or conclude about the crime.
http://www.ehow.com/facts_7572875_crime-defend-research-court-law.html
Especially after learning this new information about the roles of CSIs, I continue to realize how difficult of a job it truly is. I struggled a lot when the actual crime occurred when it came to knowing what to do and in what order and having to make sure that you gathered all of the evidence needed. It would be even more stressful to have to present this evidence at trial in a way that makes sense to the jurors.
While most people think that a CSI simply collects evidence from a crime scene, there are actually many different areas that a CSI may specialize in. Forensic scientists can specialize in anything from forensic anthropology to forensic etymology. From lab technicians to morticians, there are many varied forms of positions that deal with the physical evidence after it has been collected from the crime scene.
Behavioral psychology is relevant to CSIs and other detectives because as they process the crime scene they have to take in all of the evidence and try to piece it together to find out what it means. By knowing possible behaviors of criminals, they can better determine how far they need to canvass the area around the crime scene and who in the area to talk to. Knowledge of criminal behavior and how the minds of criminals often work can also be useful, in conjunction with the evidence, to begin to determine the motive of the crime.
This article is from a very recent capital murder trial from March. The case is from Texas where the officers who responded also served as crime scene investigators. Multiple officers and a forensic scientist were called to the stand during trial to testify about the evidence. They helped put together the pieces of what had happened by using the evidence that they collected as examples, which I think would be pretty helpful to the jury. The forensic scientist testified about the DNA evidence found at the scene and what it all meant. I think this is a very interesting case of a real life situation where a crime scene investigator has had to use photographs to help reconstruct the crime and evidence such as DNA to indicate what probably happened when the crime took place.
http://www.kcbd.com/story/17065615/day-4-crime-scene-investigators-testify-in-capital-murder-trial
I am very interested to see how the trial plays out and what will come of the evidence that was collected at the scene. It is very exciting that soon we will actually be able to see our work in the case in action and also see what the jurors make of it.
4/12/12
For the class mock trial I am a member of jury. Not much has changed since our last role essay was due (in terms of class participation – the jury has not needed to do much). From what I understand both attorneys would have to ask the judge if permission for jurors to take notes. After we did that read-through in class I am pretty worried that I will not remember the facts of this case correctly. In class we discussed why jurors are not allowed to take notes during trial. The argument is that if someone writes something down then rereads it later they will put more importance on it just because it was written down. Other than that during class and in terms of the case there has not been a lot of new information about being a juror. I did further research on some of the questions that have going through my mind while thinking about my part as a juror and from the perspective of the court cases that we are discussing in class (the documentary we have been watching).
The first question I looked into was how to postpone jury duty. I am aware that people may have legitimate excuses for not showing up for jury duty. However, when I started researching this question online there were multiple new excuses that I had not thought of before. Excuses such as being seventy years old or older and chose not to; being convicted of a felony either currently or within the past seven years ( I think we touched on this in class); or if you are a member of supreme court (in a few different ways). I also found out that there is no child care offered (I am not sure if this is for specific states or across the nation). Lastly, for this particular site, they mentioned that there is no compensation offered for being a jury member; however, your employer should pay you as normal for the time missed at work. http://www.jud.ct.gov/jury/faq.htm#duty
The next site I looked at offered more insight into first-hand jury duty. It looked like a blog, but I couldn’t find who it was written by. This blogger wrote about how they were planning on getting out of jury duty. There were going to make up some bogus and mediocre medical issues that would prevent them from serving on a jury. They said that many others that were summoned were dismissed with just about any excuse they could come up with. This person decided to stick it out because the defendant was being charged with assault with frozen chicken leg. The defendant was eventually found not guilty. As interesting as this blog was to read I learned some things about jury duty. It seemed that not only do some potential jurors and jurors not take their responsibilities, but there are some judges that are pretty relaxed as well. Then again, I remember discussing the issue of no-shows in class. They said that if enough people show up to make up a jury then those that do not show may not be punished. That may have been the case here – the judge let people with any excuse go because there were enough people that showed up to have a jury. http://thedromomaniac.com/2012/04/03/italy-is-in-my-sights/
The last article I read was about a nine-year-old that was summoned for jury duty. This was in the state of Massachusetts; apparently this sort of thing happens twice a year for this state. Then the article went on to discuss some of the other errors or excuses that will dismiss someone from jury duty. The part that caught my attention was that if this situation (an under aged person being summoned) is not addressed soon enough then the parents may be penalized. http://blogs.findlaw.com/legalgrounds/2012/03/9-year-old-gets-jury-duty-summons-whats-a-jury-duty.html
Like anything this big or that this many people take part in there are going to be errors. But, it is good to know that courts/judges are understanding that if you have a conflict you will not be penalized as long as it is a legitimate excuse. It also worries me a bit to see how lenient some judges are. Lastly, I think I would try and be on the jury for a case where the defendant was on trial for assault with a frozen chicken leg.
Being a police officer at the scene of the mock crime was a cool experience for me. To be honest I wish I would have been a detective because I really wanted to find the evidence that would crack the case. While at the scene of the mock crime after I did my duties as a police officer I tried to get involved with the investigation offering tips to detective Schield. None the less my dreams of being a detective will have to wait because as a police officer I don’t get to be a detective until I have several years of experience on the street under my belt. My most recent role essay discussed the duties of a police officer at the scene of the crime. Now that the trial is right around the corner I figured I would do some research on police officers who take the stand in trial as a witness to a crime or crime scene.
Officers should review the case by going over the reports and evidence to freshen up on the case. It could work to an officer’s advantage to talk to the prosecutor before taking the stand; the prosecutor will tell the officer what the defense might ask.
First and foremost as with anyone taking the stand honesty is essential. Questions should be answered directly and officers should not volunteer additional information, they are in the courtroom as an unbiased witness. Officers should never ask the judge if they have to answer, this may give the jury the impression that the officer may be holding back information. It is critical that officers don’t lose their cool on the stand or argue back to attorneys as some of the officers’ actions at the scene may be called into question. There are many questions that officers need to be aware of. When asked questions regarding estimates of distance and time the officer needs to let the courtroom know that it is just an estimate. A question asking “why are you here?” should be addressed by saying you were issued a subpoena, not by stating crime related information. Officers are instructed to not use police vocabulary, but be professional. Nonverbal communication such as erect posture and eye contact with jury are ways to appear like a credible witness.
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/police/police2.htm
http://www.bluesheepdog.com/2008/01/08/courtroom-testimony-a-prepared-police-officer-will-win-the-case/
As a member of the jury, my time for participating in the trial is fast approaching. In the meantime, I've been brushing up on my knowledge as it relates to the experience of serving on a jury.
I've learned a lot from just browsing the internet and watching shows/movies such as 12 Angry Men as well as the Peterson trial we have been watching in class. 12 Angry Men proved to me that merely having a discussion can yield tremendous results and that keeping an open mind is of vital importance. The Peterson trial provided a great example of how attorneys use the power of language (both verbal and non-verbal) to elicit the desired response from members of the jury.
I have a solid understanding of my general responsibilities/duties as a member of the jury, but there are still various tidbits of information that I am finding useful. For starters, I learned that the judge may answer any juror questions if it pertains to law and how the law is interpreted. Also, before deliberating on the guilt/innocence of the defendent, jurors are given an "issue paper" that lists the issues jurors must consider when reaching a verdict. If anyone from outside the jury speaks to a jury member about the trial, it is the juror's responsiblity to notify the court.
I found it amusing some of the things that were considered illegal with the passing of The Juries Act of 1976. Someone can actually be held at fault for misrepresenting themselves in the jury selection process (does this mean just lying about a question the attorney is asking you in the selection process such as "Are you racist?"). Also, lying to someone about a reason someone else would not be able to committ to jury duty is considered a crime. So, if your dad calls and says that you are unable to serve for so and so reason and you really are not unable, your dad could get fined? That's kind of silly, although it's probably sillier as an adult if someone is calling in for you.
Another piece of new information I read was that the jury's foreperson is not only responsible for the ballots and presenting the verdict at the conclusion of the trial, but he/she is also in charge of the evidence in the case. The final noteworthy thing I read about was that lunch is not paid for. This is a travesty and needs to be remedied. Jurors should at least get some ham sandwiches and cookies served to them.
http://www.courts.ie/courts.ie/library3.nsf/pagecurrent/DFA2D24C4A929DD880257044004FC053
http://www.summitcpcourt.net/Jury/pages/ExpectAsJuror.aspx
http://voices.yahoo.com/what-expect-summoned-jury-duty-319580.html
Throughout the course of this semester, I have learned a lot of information about my role as a jury member. Although my role has not been engaged in our mock trial, it will begin next week during the jury selection. I’m very excited to see how the information I have gathered through readings, movies, and discussions will play out in our mock trial.
I have learned that jury members are randomly selected. In order to gain a pool to make a selection from, voter registration lists are generally used. I have learned that jury selection cannot exclude groups. 40 years ago, juries generally consisted of middle aged white men, but now exclusion cannot be made based on race, gender, religion, etc.
The beginning stage of the jury selection is called the venire. 20% of the people who are summoned for jury duty do not show up. The venire can be between 30-100 people. The next stage is called the voir dire. In the voir dire, the attorneys and the judge can ask the prospective jurors questions to determine who will serve on the jury.
In the jury selection process, lawyers may challenge jurors based on stereotypes. They may have notions about some people, or hunches about who the foreperson will be. There is also a hypothesis stating that jury members who have a similarity to the defendant may be more sympathetic to the defendant when it comes to deliberation.
Juries are asked to consider all evidence and messages that are presented during the case. If something is said that the judge chooses to exclude, the jury will be asked not to consider it as they make their verdict. We have learned that this is easy to say, but jury members cannot just forget information that they receive simply because they are told to do so.
After closing statements, the judge will tell the jury what they are to consider and what laws apply to the case. Jury members can ask for clarification on what they do not understand. They may also ask to see pieces of evidence as they deliberate. One person is selected to oversee the deliberation and make sure that all people are allowed to express their opinions. If the jury members cannot develop a unanimous decision, the jury is declared "a hung jury."
I’m very excited to see how realistic my position of being a jury member is in comparison to all of the information that I have learned.
My role as the media in our case is becoming quite interesting. I have begun to work one-on-one with a detective, and he has begun the liaison between the police department and the media. I am trying not to overstep my bounds, because it seems like the rest of the police department doesn't want to give out any information about the case whatsoever.
I am learning about how important technology is in the role of the media, because I have to be ready with a camera or a notepad whenever I get new information about the case. Also, video editing is very hard, and that is where I see I am lacking in my role...the press release would have been 10 times better if I had the software to edit the video and make it a little more coherent. Instead, I had to have the detective read everything straight through without being able to stop halfway through or anything.
I am currently struggling with figuring out how to request to have cameras in the courtroom. I do not know who the judge is, or how to contact him/her, or how to officially request to have cameras present in the courtroom. So to the person in charge of grading this, please send me an email (neilsonj@uni.edu) to at least tell me who the judge is so I can get cameras approved before it's too late.
I am excited to see how this trial plays out, as well as to see what new challenges I will face as the media reporter over the next few weeks!
I am really hoping that an anonymous source can come to me and leak information about the case, because that always makes news stories better and gets more people to read them.
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1627&context=facpubs&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dhow%2520to%2520report%2520on%2520a%2520criminal%2520trial%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D4%26ved%3D0CGYQFjAD%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarship.law.wm.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1627%2526context%253Dfacpubs%26ei%3D7ICHT7zwFOmN8AGV0MSiCA%26usg%3DAFQjCNGIIiJiLQ-2G14aq36rf2n2rbGHdA#search=%22how%20report%20criminal%20trial%22
This is an article that I read on media in the courtroom. The author, Paul Marcus, says “Free speech and fair trials are two of the most cherished policies of our civilization, and it would be a trying task to choose between them” (Marcus 2)
I totally agree with him. Although he quoted somebody saying that what happens in court is public property, he also says that these are very private matters, and that the courts have gone to great lengths to make sure that the media’s interference with the trial is minimal. I agree with this, because the public deserves to know what’s going on, but also the people in the trial shouldn’t be put in the spotlight because that can somehow influence the way that they testify…or just damage their reputation.
As I have said before, I will try my best to not interfere with the justice of our case. The problem is that when certain “journalists” lack respectability and integrity, they like to dig deep into a case, and reveal anything that will sell magazines or get people to watch their tv show. This is where the focus gets away from “informing the public” and goes more towards “making myself money.” I think that the people who do the most damage to the first amendment are the people who claim to “express” it the most. A lot of people don’t realize that there are still some unprotected areas of speech, and that we’re really not as free as they like to believe. Those people who give “free speech” a bad name are those who overstep their bounds and harass people, and infringe on people’s right to privacy. Those news media outlets need to be shut down and people need to stop paying attention to them.
http://www.mpdailyfix.com/what-is-journalistic-integrity-in-a-social-media-world/#high_1
Another big role in media nowadays is social media. This article is all about how social media is taking over certain aspects of news, but traditional media still is in control of others. One example that they used was to say that even though people heard about Michael Jackson’s death beforehand, they didn’t believe it until the “real media” reported on it. However, certain kinds of stories go around quickly through social media, like when the plane landed in the Hudson river…because somebody recorded it on their phone, people believed it, as opposed to just rumors spread around that could be a hoax.
This essay should show your developing knowledge of your role in the mock crime/trial. You should discuss and describe what you are continuing to learn about your role. If you role has been engaged in the class project already, make sure to discuss your experience (without divulging case-sensitive information!)
My role in the class project is an expert witness. I have yet to be engaged in the case or mock trial, nor has the prosecution or defense attorney contacted me to be an expert witness for them. During the trial, I am assuming I will be called to the stand to give a direct testimony. Direct testimony involves the lawyer questioning me and facilitating my explanation at how I arrived at my expert opinion. One of the difficulties of being an expert witness is explaining technical terms to a lay jury. If members of the jury do not understand what you are trying to say, you may come across as pompous or like you are just spitting out a bunch of big words to sound good and this can almost make you look worse. Another difficulty of being an expert witness is during the cross-examination of the opposing attorney. During this time, they may be hostile in their questions as they attempt to make the expert witness look incompetent and uneducated in the field relevant to the case.
I was interested in finding out what specific rules apply to being an expert witness. From this site:
http://www.dfinews.com/article/how-be-effective-expert-witness-court-part-1?page=0,1
I found a surfeit amount of information about being an expert witness. It states that,
”The applicable rules are set forth in Rules 701 through 706, Federal Rules of Evidence. As noted in Rule 702, F. R. E.: "If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.... the expert may testify only "if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case." "—DFI NEWS
Because our case is dealing with a homicide, I am assuming that I will possibly be providing information on insanity.
My role in the mock trial is a jury member. Each and every class I learn more and more about the importance of my role as a jury member.
The first day of class my thoughts were that the job a a jury member was simple. They simply had to say innocent or guilty. What is so difficult about that?? I have learn over the past several weeks it is so much more than that. First I learned about jury selection. Its not as simple as getting a letter in the mail then sitting in the jury stand. There are tens of people to be selected to be on a jury of 12. These people all get sent through stages and may or may not make it to the next depending on their opinions, views, jobs, past, etc. The eventually they make it to the final 12. The attorneys spend a lot of time and money deciding who should be on the jury and who will do the best for their case, and what jurors will help them win or not win.
Every aspect of the crime has to do with the jury. What a witness sees weather its true or not has the ability to easily sway the jury one way or another. Normally its towards guilty. The evidence that is found or not found can make or brake a trial when it comes to proving the defendant innocent or guilty. When it came to the staircase, I looked at things as if i were on that jury and from first impression i was 100% for voting guilty, but then after they presented all the evidence, like how she could have gotten all those cuts from falling, and they blood could get all over the place from coughing, and when they found the blow poke that the prosecutors had been saying that may have been the murder weapon, it all gave me reasonable doubt and so I would not have been able to send that man to jail for murder. When the jury came out, i was sure they would think they same way i do and have enough doubt to vote him not guilty so you could imagine my shock when they found the defendant guilty. I wondered what when on in the jury room to get them to come to that verdict.
Before watching 12 angry men I never really know what when on in a jury room. Not to say that 12 angry men is a prime example, but it gives me an idea. It also amazes me how one jury member could sway the votes of 11 other people. I also got a chance to understand how it works to be the head of the jury and to take votes and request evidence, and keep order. I never new there was one jury member involved in that before the movie.
When it comes to our mock trial the jury hasnt done much. Jury selection is on tuesday, but it can be a realistic one because we have, for the most part, been selected. As for the rest of the case, in my opinion, it seems like it is a bit behind which may make things difficult in many ways. If the evidence is not organized enough or there is not a sufficient defendant then it becomes hard for the jury to make a legit case and in turn it would be almost impossible for the jury to vote guilty.
Through the semester I have realized how important everyone role is, but, in my opinion, the entire case revolves around the jury. The attourneys try to persuade the jury to vote for their side, the evidence that is collected, the eye witness testomines, the sketches, the studies, they are all done to get the jury to believe what you say is true. We hold the fate of a person, or several people, in our hand, well more literally, in our heads.
For our trial I am a member of the jury. So far, the jury has not had a part in the trial and we have already talked about jurors with the last role essay. I am slowly learning some new things about juries and their duties, but I have already written about it in the other blogs. Juries are a very important part of the trial process. They are the sole people who decide whether or not the defendant is guilty or not guilty. The judge gives them instructions on what to do before deliberation, but the rules are often confusing. It can take a long time for them to be read, and jurors often forget what a particular law means. When that happens in deliberation, they are often left to interpret what they think it is supposed to mean. This can lead to prejudices, even though the person may not even be aware of it. Jurors may be able to take notes, but the judge needs to be asked and they decide whether he or she is going to allow that or not. Jury members can be very persuaded by other members. In the movie 12 Angry Men that we watched, originally, only one man had voted not not guilty. Slowly, other people started listening to him and started argreeing with him. In the end, they all ended up voting not guilty. We have been watching the Michael Peterson video and we finally heard the verdict. The jury voted him guilty of murder. I wonder how much persuasion went on in their deliberation. Even though we basically saw most of the case from the defense's side, I thought they did provide enough evidence that there was a reasonable doubt in my mind. If I was on the jury, I probably would have voted not guilty. There were just a lot of different possibilities that could have happened.
One website I found stated that the jury bases their verdict on the evidence that was presented to them and nothing else. It is important that they do not try to interpret the law. People who are on the jury do not know every facet of the law, so they should not use their knowledge in this way. The site also says that any jury member may pass a piece of paper containing a question to the judge. The judge then answers the questions about different aspects of the case. Similarly, if they have questions during their deliberation, they may ask for clarification from the judge. But once they are in that deliberation room, they are not allowed to communicate to anyone outside of that room, apart from the judge.
Another website that I found describes the difference between grand jury and petit jury. The grand jury will hear the evidence and decide whether that evidence is sufficient enough to get an indictment. Also, grand juries do not decide on a verdict. It also states that grand juries usually last for a longer period of time than do petit juries. One thing that was really interesting with this site was that it had a long list of legal terms and their definitions. If a jury member were able to constantly look over this list, that would probably help considerably. But, they are not able to do that. The requirements of becoming a juror are also a part of this website. You have to be a US citizen, live in that county, must be at least 18 years old, and not have been convicted of any crimes.
http://www.courts.ie/courts.ie/library3.nsf/pagecurrent/DFA2D24C4A929DD880257044004FC053?opendocument&l=en
http://www.summitcpcourt.net/Jury/Pages/Welcome.aspx
http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/criminal.aspx
This link starts off with a story about how criminal profiling was used in a real case involving the "mad bomber". In the case of the mad bomber, the psychiatrist happened to be spot on with his prediction of the person behind it being "unmarried, foreign, in his 50s, self-educated, paranoid, living in Conneticut, and holding a vendetta against his first target". It says that nowadays profiling rests somewhere between law enforcement and psychology. It has been determined that profiling a murderer's behavior has four phases, antecedent, method and manner, body disposal, and postoffense behavior.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-criminal-profiling.htm
This link tells about the different types of offenders you run into and their characteristics. These include: organized offenders, spontaneous offenders, and a mixed offender.
My role has been difficult thus far. I haven't had the chance to meet with the detectives and go over the evidence. So far my research has pretty much told me one thing: criminal profiling is difficult to make a career out of. It takes extensive schooling and practice in the area to make it to a level that is considered to be professional. For places like the FBI, you need a degree in clinical counseling or forensic psychology, and then they'd like you to be a field officer for a number of years before you start getting into the psychological aspect of it.
Although forensic psychology is something I'm still interested in, it would be tough to do it as a career. Only about 10% of the people who go into it actually make it "big-time" with the FBI or somewhere where they can make a living off of it. It's still something I want to look at however, being a psychology and sociology double major, studying people is what I will do, so I would simply need to apply that to criminals. Although I wasn't able to do much for our mock trial, I think once I can meet with the detectives and get some insight into how they came up with their profile I'll get a better understanding of how something like this works.
The role I play in the court trial is a character witness. I am very anxious to become a part of the trial as I have not been able to do anything at all throughout the trial process. Every time my classmates are asked outside of the room to do tasks for the trial I get jealous because I want to be able to play a part right now. It also makes me more excited to play this role because this role may be considered a less important role compared to an attorney or a judge, but the character witness can alter the view of the person in the juries eyes.
I found it very interesting when I look up information about the character witnesses, the most common thing to show up are the formats of the letter to send in as a character witness. This is the most popular way to perform a character witness for someone by not appearing in court and sending in a letter of your views on the person you are speaking on behalf of. I find this way easier when writing the letter because a person has more time to think of what it is to say and to be careful on what he or she said. They also cannot be taken off guard by the other attorney to be cross examined. This, however, is not what is going to take place at our trial. Our trial will have the character witnesses present and able to be cross examined by the other attorney which can be very nerve racking because as a witness, I want to be able to help the person I am speaking for and I do not want information withheld from me about that person.
I have not done anything for the trial yet nor have we really talked about the character witnesses in class so I decided to look up a few cases in which character witnesses are discussed:
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2012/03/19/cyril-wecht-testifies-as-character-witness-for-jane-orie/
This above site explains the character witness in the trial of Pennsylvania's state senator Jane Orie. Jane Orie is accused of forging documents as well as having her employees do campaign work on state time in her legislative office. The last of her character witnesses, Cyril Wecht, testified for her. What I found interesting about this was the fact Cyril was advised by the judge to leave out the conflicts he was having with the District Attorney. He did leave the conflict alone in the courtroom but he was not shy about the conflicts to the reporters out of the room. He states he feels the prosecution is politically motivated which is something I feel may have detested his testimony in front of a jury.
http://www.4lawschool.com/evidence/michelson.shtml
I learned a lot of information from this site above. This page went into discussing the character witness portion of the Michelson v. United States case. This case about the defendant who was convicted of bribing an IRS agent in order to influence his official action. The prosecution cross examined the defendants character witness by asking if they had knowledge of the defendant's conviction for counterfeiting conviction and arrest for receiving stolen property 27 years earlier. None of the character witnesses knew about this which detested their credibility as a witness. The website went into thorough rationale behind the character witnesses in this case. According to Michelson v. United States, witnesses may not testify about the defendants’s specific acts, conduct, possession of a particular disposition, mental or moral traits, or his own opinion that the defendant possesses a general or specific character, inconsistent with the commission of the acts charged. I found this very interesting because I did not know the character witness could not testify about a person's moral traits or specific acts and character inconsistent with the commission of the acts he or she is charged with. I thought that was what I was there to do; to help make the jury believe the person is not like what they are portrayed to be. When a witness is cross examined as to an arrest, it tests the qualifications of the witness to speak on behalf of the community opinion.
Once again, I am very excited to play this role in the trial. Hopefully I will know more about my topic once I am included.
I am one of three eyewitnesses. Currently, my role doesn’t have a very significant part in the trial. Lately I’ve only have to consult with the detectives for an update on my recollection of the event. Also the sketch artist has requested of myself and the other three witnesses that we give her a vivid description of the perpetrator in order for her to come up with a computerized image of the case’s possible suspect. I’ll admit, I thought my job as an eyewitness was going to be a piece of cake, not using hardly any effort on my part at all. I was completely wrong! I actually feel myself falling into this role and having an extremely hard time remembering exactly what I saw that day. It is definitely a lot harder than I thought it was going to be. When it’s my time to be used as a witness on the stand I feel like my testimony will be only a slight use of help. I’m not sure if I have fallen victim to “memory influences” by the police or detectives, but I’m sure we’ll find out soon enough.
Playing this part has taught me a lot about not only the struggles of an eyewitness but the actual job of one. You wouldn’t think an eyewitness to a crime would actually have a “job” in a case. They are required to keep things confidential, they have to be able to keep their story straight for the prosecution and defense, and they have to limit themselves from fraternizing with other eyewitnesses to avoid corrupting stories and recollections. I honestly feel like we haven’t done that great of a job doing that here. I’ve mixed up some details of my story with some of the other eyewitnesses because every time we’re asked about what we saw, we’re all together and we try to find a middle ground that we all agree on. Of course this isn’t an actual trial but of course, things such as the corruption of stories and mixing up of details happens all the time in real life, adding more and more difficulties to the jobs of our law enforcement.
I am a member of the jury for our mock trial. My role hasn’t really been utilized in the trial thus far, but I have learned quite a bit about the jury in both the readings and lectures. I learned more about the processes of jury selection and what is expected of a juror. Before reading the chapter on the jury, I assumed there were limited ways to get out of serving, but it turns out, there are quite the variety of excuses. I also thought that it was absolutely mandatory to show up to the first round, but I learned that if enough people show up, those who don’t, don’t get punished.
The jury has a tough job of taking in all of the evidence and deciding whether a defendant is guilty.
One of the main ideas that I have learned is that of reasonable doubt. In the movie we watched in class, 12 Angry Men, and really any case the main task of the defense is to establish reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors. Usually this is done by providing and alternate story of what happened that contradicts what the prosecution says. Theoretically, if the juror has any doubt whatsoever about the prosecutions story that the defense has put a hole in, they are supposed to vote not guilty. I believe that this idea isn’t always utilized correctly. Some jurors might just want to get out of deliberation, and others might hold a prejudice against the defendant. Jury selection is supposed to get rid of people that are likely to have these prejudices, but the prosecution has ways of creating them.
Another thing that I have thought about it that jurors have to be willing to speak their minds in deliberation. In 12 Angry men, there was a sort of shy juror who wasn’t sure how to get his opinion out there at first. I think this might be very similar to how I react because I tend to be shy and don’t really express my opinion unless I’m directly asked. I’m sure there have been other jurors in the same situation. They could have an opinion that differs from the rest of the group, but they don’t say anything for fear of antagonizing other members.
I decided to do a little more research on quiet jurors and found some pretty interesting information. Just because a person isn’t always speaking doesn’t mean they aren’t constantly thinking. It’s usually the quiet ones who have the most powerful thoughts. The article I found was a study done by a judge who targeted the quiet jurors. He took the jurors who didn’t answer any of the questions in the group part of jury selection and asked them why. Interestingly, most of the results were them already being biased in the case and one was even an alcoholic who was “already beginning to shake.”
http://jurylaw.typepad.com/deliberations/2007/07/quiet-jurors.html
For the class mock trial I am a member of the jury. So far, the jury hasn’t been involved in the case. I haven’t learned much new information since my last role essay. Throughout this semester I have improved my knowledge about jury duty immensely. Since beginning this class I have learned how a jury is selected, reasons to get out of jury duty, how jurors are compensated, how jurors can be biased, how important a jury is, and how to be an effective juror.
I did learn that most court cases don’t allow the jury to keep notes. I was surprised by this fact because I had just assumed that it would make sense for people to keep notes of things they thought to be important. The reasoning behind not allowing notes is that people will look back at their notes and the stuff they wrote down may hold precedent over other information/evidence, just due to the fact that they found it important enough to write down.
After watching 12 Angry Men, I became aware of just how important it is to be a very observant and knowledgeable juror. It is important that jurors don't jump to assumptions about the suspect's innocence or guilt. They need to be sure to listen to all of the evidence. Jurors shouldn’t just go with the easy vote because they want to be done with jury duty, they really need to analyze the evidence and take into consideration everything the prosecuting attorneys and defense attorneys say. The prosecutors must prove beyond reasonable doubt that their client is guilty. The burden is on the prosecutors to prove their point.
The show we watched that discussed the case of Mr. Peterson and the death of his wife showed just how difficult it will be to be a member of the jury. At the beginning of the movie, I was certain that the husband was the perpetrator, but after seeing both sides of the evidence I really couldn’t be certain that he did it. I was surprised when he was found guilty, since the prosecutors did not have an actual murder weapon. I am anxious to see how difficult it will be for me to make a decision in our mock trial.
I found a website that discusses different techniques to be an effective member of the jury. The first tip is to know what judges and attorneys expect from jurors. The second tip is to be honest, forthcoming, and genuine. Jurors must listen attentively and take notes (if allowed). Jurors should ask questions if they do not understand something. Last but not least, they should be sure to listen to ALL the evidence before forming any conclusions.
http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/tips-to-being-an-effective-juror
I think the jury plays and especially important role in our mock trial. I am excited/anxious to see how it all turns out.
My role in this mock trial is the detective. I have learned a ton about my role as a detective from the experiences I've had. My role so far has consisted of collecting evidence, questioning witnesses, interrogating suspects and providing information to the media. Since I met with both prosecuting attorneys and the other detective I can't stop thinking about the case. My role has taken me over. At first I wasn't sure where to start and felt the evidence I collected with the CSI was weak, little did I know I was wrong. We have some very strong evidence that at first seemed unimportant at the time but as the case continues the subtle evidence is helping in our favor. I keep thinking of many scenarios of how the murder could have happened and also who might have committed the murder as well. I am analyzing the suspects very carefully to see if they give up an information on accident. I have an idea who committed the murder but I am not ready to fully believe they committed the crime. I don't want to make a mistake by convicting the wrong person. All the suspects I have interviewed have both showed innocent and suspicious actions. The witnesses have been a great help because they saw and agreed on a lot of information which helps build us a stronger case. I was very impressed on how their memory was over a month after the crime had occurred. They were able to recall valuable information that is crucial for the case. My experience with the media was also quite the experience. Jacob was pretty easy going in the press release. I thought he was going to be very aggressive at the press release and try to get out as many information as possible. I feel that he was cooperative this time around but I have a feeling that he is going to be tough to handle in our next press release. The preliminary hearing is on Tuesday and I feel the prosecuting attorney's and us detectives are ready to make a good first impression. I feel we are a head of the defense and have some information up our sleeve that will be detrimental to their case. I don't want to disclose any evidence on accident so I am going to stop while I'm ahead. I feel Jacob might try to read my post and try to use it against me at some point or broad cast it and accidentally hurt my case.
My role in the mock case is that of the judge. To this point I have been learning a lot about the role of the judge in both the courtroom setting and outside roles. In our case I have been able to engage in some minor involvement. However, as the case continues to progress, so does the list of my responsibilities. I think it is important for me to review what I have learned about my role up to this point before I discuss some of the work I have done so far.
The judge is a primary role in any legal setting. From traffic hearing to criminal and civl procedures the judge always plays the primary role of the courtroom arbitrator. Judge's are responsible for controlling the proceedings of the courtroom to ensure things run smoothly and formally. It is the duty of the judge to ensure that all legal hearings in the United States are conducted in a socially cordial style. Furthermore, it is the descretion of the judge that can determine just how formal the process has to be. In addition to directing the courtroom process, the judge is also responsible for overseeing all of the evidence that is going to be admitted into a hearing.
As the judge it is my job to review the evidence that the prosecution has collected through the work of the detectives and decide whether or not it can be used in the trial or not. This can include material such as photographs, fingerprints, items of interests, and testimony from witnesses. This can be especially challenging in the case of witnesses. Witnesses could offer crucial testimony, but if they may pose a conflict of interests to the trial as a whole then I cannot allow the testimony. Items of special interest can also be problematic, especially in situations where they may have been acquired without the use of a warrant. This actually brings me to my next point. So far in the mock case my involvement has required me to issue warrants to the prosecution. A couple days ago I reviewed some evidence that involved the victim and some other characters that, Im sure, will be crucial characters in the case. After reviewing the evidence I had to decide whether or not to issue a warrant to the prosecution in order for the investigation to search some of said characters homes. It was my belief that the evidence was substantial enough to justify issuing the warrant to the prosecution. That is the furthest extent of my responsibilities thus far in this case.
After having to fufill the responsibility of issuing a warrant I wanted to research the internet and find more. For police to recieve a warrant they must demonstrate probable cause to the issuing judge. The officers must address all of the details of a search they wish to conduct. Officers disclose these plans in a document called an affidavit to the judge they wish to recieve a warrant from. The judge must then determine the totality of the circumstances and decide the approach the warrant involves. Furthermore, the judge can restrict where and when the search can take place. There are many other details involved with the process of processing warrants and searches, but overall the judge is the main component in the process.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/search_warrant
When I decided I wanted to be an eyewitness for the trial, I partially wanted the part because I didn't think it would require a lot of work. All I had to do was go on a scavenger hunt for crime during class, tell the cops what I saw, and then move on. However, this past week showed me just how important my role is to the case.
The other day during class, the detectives and the sketch artist asked the eyewitnesses questions about what we saw. Previously, I had had full confidence in my memory abilties. I thought I would be excellent for the role of eyewitness because I was observant and had a good memory. However, when we were asked questions, very specific questions, about what the perpetrator looked like, I could easily see why being an eyewitness would be extremely difficult.
The crime occured in a matter of seconds; blink and you would have missed it. In that time, the three of us barely had time to register what was happening, let alone get a good look at the perp. Yet, that is what was expected of us. We were asked to give a full discription of the scene, as well as physical features to describe a person we barely saw. Then, an entire month later, we were asked to repeat those same details, but with even more specific details. Was the perp wearing jeans? Were they light or dark jeans? Tight or baggy? Did they have any distinctive designers or charactaristics? I felt bad for the sketch artist honestly, because the description we gave her definitely did not make her job easy by any means.
I really understood how easily it would be for an eyewitness to have their memories exaggerated or contaminated. It was so hard to remember and if the detective hadn't been really careful about the kinds of questions they were asking, it could have been easy to say whatever they wanted to hear.
My role in the mock case is that of the judge. To this point I have been learning a lot about the role of the judge in both the courtroom setting and outside roles. In our case I have been able to engage in some minor involvement. However, as the case continues to progress, so does the list of my responsibilities. I think it is important for me to review what I have learned about my role up to this point before I discuss some of the work I have done so far.
The judge is a primary role in any legal setting. From traffic hearing to criminal and civl procedures the judge always plays the primary role of the courtroom arbitrator. Judge's are responsible for controlling the proceedings of the courtroom to ensure things run smoothly and formally. It is the duty of the judge to ensure that all legal hearings in the United States are conducted in a socially cordial style. Furthermore, it is the descretion of the judge that can determine just how formal the process has to be. In addition to directing the courtroom process, the judge is also responsible for overseeing all of the evidence that is going to be admitted into a hearing.
As the judge it is my job to review the evidence that the prosecution has collected through the work of the detectives and decide whether or not it can be used in the trial or not. This can include material such as photographs, fingerprints, items of interests, and testimony from witnesses. This can be especially challenging in the case of witnesses. Witnesses could offer crucial testimony, but if they may pose a conflict of interests to the trial as a whole then I cannot allow the testimony. Items of special interest can also be problematic, especially in situations where they may have been acquired without the use of a warrant. This actually brings me to my next point. So far in the mock case my involvement has required me to issue warrants to the prosecution. A couple days ago I reviewed some evidence that involved the victim and some other characters that, Im sure, will be crucial characters in the case. After reviewing the evidence I had to decide whether or not to issue a warrant to the prosecution in order for the investigation to search some of said characters homes. It was my belief that the evidence was substantial enough to justify issuing the warrant to the prosecution. That is the furthest extent of my responsibilities thus far in this case.
After having to fufill the responsibility of issuing a warrant I wanted to research the internet and find more. For police to recieve a warrant they must demonstrate probable cause to the issuing judge. The officers must address all of the details of a search they wish to conduct. Officers disclose these plans in a document called an affidavit to the judge they wish to recieve a warrant from. The judge must then determine the totality of the circumstances and decide the approach the warrant involves. Furthermore, the judge can restrict where and when the search can take place. There are many other details involved with the process of processing warrants and searches, but overall the judge is the main component in the process.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/search_warrant
My role is a jury member. I’ve learned a little more on the topic of jury selection, especially since coming up soon the trial will be starting and the will begin to do their selection. Usually there’s jury consultants that will be hired for both sides. These consultants will typically give out surveys and do mock trials to figure out who would be best suited to aide them in winning their case. Also in the selection they will weed the people out who they have any sort of inkling towards that won’t most likely go for their side.
I never really understood how important it is for the defendant to be dressed up well, until this class while watching the Petersen trial. I’ve watched shows, and right now in one of my TV shows I’m noticing it more, because one of my characters is on trial and he’s cleaned up and looks very sharp in his suit and tie. This is giving off a good impression, or at least hopefully giving off a good vibe to the jurors who are there to give him the not guilty verdict or guilty verdict. By looking good the defendants are trying to either persuade or show the jury that they are clean/cut people who wouldn’t commit a crime such as murder.
Something I hope the jury will be able to do in this trial is being allowed to take notes. I have a good memory, but sometimes even I can twist certain things and not mean to. During a real trial I’ve learned that both the attorneys would need to get permission from the judge in order to allow or not allow note taking to go on.
One of the things I looked up was about the state of Oklahoma having mail returned to them because of faulty addresses. In this article it talked about the mailing problems of returns from people who have faulty addresses. But usually the courts are fine because there’s still a good amount of potential jurors left to sort through, even with all the no shows. This was interesting for me to read about, didn’t really register that faulty addresses play a role in canceling out people that already so soon don’t make the jury selection. All in all I believe the jury selection is very important to how the trial will play out, you need to pick the right people for the right cases to listen to.
http://newsok.com/letters-blamed-for-no-shows-at-jury-duty/article/1444659
My role in the mock trial is an expert witness. I have yet to take part in the trial, so I am excited to find out what kind of expert witness I will be.
An expert witness is a person, who by virtue of education, training, skills, and experience is believed to have expertise and specialized knowledge of a specific area beyond that of the average person. Expert witnesses are used to elaborate a specific topic in court. Expert witnesses may also present expert evidence that correlates with their field. Whether this may be on the prosecution or the defense side, the opposing side always tries to undermind the other expert witness.
Expert witnesses are relied on for many topics when testifying in court including:severity of injury, degree of insanity, cause of failure in a machine, loss of earnings, and so on. They are supposed to keep their opinion about the trial to themselves until after they are hired.
There are many duties of an expert witness. According to the Civil Procedure Rules, expert witnesses are supposed to be independent and explain their expert report to the court. Expert witnesses are supposed to provide a report that both agrees and disagrees with both sides of the court.
The first known use of expert witnesses was in 1782, for a litigation hearing. Expert witnesses are considered to be an important factor in civil and criminal cases today. The most common expert witnesses in criminal cases today are fingerprint examination, blood analysis, and DNA fingerprinting.
There are two different types of expert witnesses: non-testifying experts and testifying experts. Non-testifying experts are experts that are hired on to examine evidence or a crime scene. These types of experts have a confidentiality privilege, meaning that if they find something that incriminates the suspect, the other attorneys will not find out. However, if the expert witness is called to court then that privilege is taken away. These are called testifying witnesses.