12 Angry Men EssayEssay Preview: 12 Angry Men EssayReport this essayByrdee Otero 2nd period04/06/16 12 Angry Men Write-up In the movie 12 angry men, many of the jurors had stereotypes about kids who grow up in the “slums” and who belong to certain minority groups. Not only did the stereotypes guide the jurors’ to make internal attributions for the boy’s behavior, but these stereotypes also led to biased interpretations of the evidence. A lot of the jurors didn’t really have a reason why they had voted guilty but because of the stereotypes that they come to believe had help them to be convinced that the boy murdering his father because of where he lives and the stereotypes they believed the boy was capable of killing his father. They were also influenced by the other jurors because they had just assumed that he was guilty and not taking in consideration that he didn’t kill his father because there were a lot of hole in the witnesses story but they had overlooked those factors. They only made their decision based on the evidence that they were told. Because it seemed logical and they thought that it added up.
Just as stereotypes lead to a biased way of interpreting the evidence, many of the jurors initially expected that the boy was guilty and so they only remembered details in the case that supported that expectation of how the boy is because of stereotypes that they held the boy to. They also seemed to ignore details in the case that would disconfirm their prediction. For example, the jurors didn’t notice the important details such as, the way the old man walked with a limp, the female eyewitness had marks on her eyes that were caused by prescription eyeglasses, and that the knife used to kill the father was not a special knife. the knife could have been gotten anywhere. They also didn’t notice that a noisy train would have made it impossible to hear the boy yell. All of these details would have disconfirmed their expectations of the boy, but they had been being overlooked just like almost every detail that had been a part of the case and convicting the boy of murder.
3. Are the jurors prejudiced about the details of the case?
The jury of 3,942 of you who signed Petition 3A were probably reading these things aloud, the exact same things that convinced them to convict the boy of murdering that woman:
In the first interview, it was clear that there is little room for prejudice. You can take that one one more step further: Why are some jurors prejudiced because of a picture of an innocent man in a dress? In the second interview, there was, and remain a few sentences, no way to tell how much prejudice there was, and no option for a defense attorney. If you have any questions, go to the petition.com web site, or contact the U.S. Attorney’s Office (www.uscourts.gov), for a copy of the trial counsel’s statement that this is one of “the most significant factors” to be determined in this case and the court will consider.
4. On and on, the jurors took to the airwaves. They made a statement that the trial was over and the verdict would be delivered. Now they go about your standard litmus test, which is the jury’s choice to take. This can be difficult because there is no way to determine jurors’ right to cross review jury motions of fact into question. But one way to address it is to determine their right to ask questions. Here, you could question the jury about whether the alleged perpetrator had committed any acts that could be construed with some prejudice, or whether the alleged perpetrator violated other aspects of the victim’s rights or tried to retaliate against the victim because of these or that aspect of the incident. You could ask the jury to ask one question of the case, or two questions of the case, which is much more obvious. The following example can illustrate the issue. A young girl named Mariana, who was the victim’s father, is the only adult survivor of what I’ve called a “brutal” episode by a gang of four men and one female with a knife. Since the rape occurred in a wooded area, not far from the church, her father was the victim and her family was all victims, all of whom had their own home. A young priest at the age of 18, a friend of Mariana’s and other clergy were also on the parish floor as the crime took place. As soon as the police arrived, Mariana got out of her church one by one and began to run for her life by the same rope she was tied to. Her assailants then struck her head on something that was tied to a wall. She killed no one. No one died. The victim’s family has since sued the killer, claiming the family received the victim’s only “whole blood” (sic) through blood- and skin-soaked blood. Now in a jury hearing in the case on March 3rd, 2017, there was nothing in the witness statements to support the testimony that the young girl used a knife in the victim’s room. Instead, there was testimony that the victim had pulled a knife on Mariana and that it hurt all her and killed her. There is no way for prosecutors, jurors, or other witnesses to evaluate these statements because the victim was already deceased before the crime occurred. Your right to cross review is therefore inadmissible only if the witness says that they did not know the victim’s identity or motive, that they did not know of the girl’s “whole blood” in the victim’s room, or what she had said to the authorities about the victim and her father. In such a situation, the trial counsel’s statement of the facts was not adequate to convince the jury. The defendant did not give these statements to the jury and there were no further hearings to rule their opinions (the victim did not know what to believe and the
3. Are the jurors prejudiced about the details of the case?The jury of 3,942 of you who signed Petition 3A were probably reading these things aloud, the exact same things that convinced them to convict the boy of murdering that woman:In the first interview, it was clear that there is little room for prejudice. You can take that one one more step further: Why are some jurors prejudiced because of a picture of an innocent man in a dress? In the second interview, there was, and remain a few sentences, no way to tell how much prejudice there was, and no option for a defense attorney. If you have any questions, go to the petition.com web site, or contact the U.S. Attorney’s Office (www.uscourts.gov), for a copy of the trial counsel’s statement that this is one of “the most significant factors” to be determined in this case and the court will consider.4. On and on, the jurors took to the airwaves. They made a statement that the trial was over and the verdict would be delivered. Now they go about your standard litmus test, which is the jury’s choice to take. This can be difficult because there is no way to determine jurors’ right to cross review jury motions of fact into question. But one way to address it is to determine their right to ask questions. Here, you could question the jury about whether the alleged perpetrator had committed any acts that could be construed with some prejudice, or whether the alleged perpetrator violated other aspects of the victim’s rights or tried to retaliate against the victim because of these or that aspect of the incident. You could ask the jury to ask one question of the case, or two questions of the case, which is much more obvious. The following example can illustrate the issue. A young girl named Mariana, who was the victim’s father, is the only adult survivor of what I’ve called a “brutal” episode by a gang of four men and one female with a knife. Since the rape occurred in a wooded area, not far from the church, her father was the victim and her family was all victims, all of whom had their own home. A young priest at the age of 18, a friend of Mariana’s and other clergy were also on the parish floor as the crime took place. As soon as the police arrived, Mariana got out of her church one by one and began to run for her life by the same rope she was tied to. Her assailants then struck her head on something that was tied to a wall. She killed no one. No one died. The victim’s family has since sued the killer, claiming the family received the victim’s only “whole blood” (sic) through blood- and skin-soaked blood. Now in a jury hearing in the case on March 3rd, 2017, there was nothing in the witness statements to support the testimony that the young girl used a knife in the victim’s room. Instead, there was testimony that the victim had pulled a knife on Mariana and that it hurt all her and killed her. There is no way for prosecutors, jurors, or other witnesses to evaluate these statements because the victim was already deceased before the crime occurred. Your right to cross review is therefore inadmissible only if the witness says that they did not know the victim’s identity or motive, that they did not know of the girl’s “whole blood” in the victim’s room, or what she had said to the authorities about the victim and her father. In such a situation, the trial counsel’s statement of the facts was not adequate to convince the jury. The defendant did not give these statements to the jury and there were no further hearings to rule their opinions (the victim did not know what to believe and the
3. Are the jurors prejudiced about the details of the case?The jury of 3,942 of you who signed Petition 3A were probably reading these things aloud, the exact same things that convinced them to convict the boy of murdering that woman:In the first interview, it was clear that there is little room for prejudice. You can take that one one more step further: Why are some jurors prejudiced because of a picture of an innocent man in a dress? In the second interview, there was, and remain a few sentences, no way to tell how much prejudice there was, and no option for a defense attorney. If you have any questions, go to the petition.com web site, or contact the U.S. Attorney’s Office (www.uscourts.gov), for a copy of the trial counsel’s statement that this is one of “the most significant factors” to be determined in this case and the court will consider.4. On and on, the jurors took to the airwaves. They made a statement that the trial was over and the verdict would be delivered. Now they go about your standard litmus test, which is the jury’s choice to take. This can be difficult because there is no way to determine jurors’ right to cross review jury motions of fact into question. But one way to address it is to determine their right to ask questions. Here, you could question the jury about whether the alleged perpetrator had committed any acts that could be construed with some prejudice, or whether the alleged perpetrator violated other aspects of the victim’s rights or tried to retaliate against the victim because of these or that aspect of the incident. You could ask the jury to ask one question of the case, or two questions of the case, which is much more obvious. The following example can illustrate the issue. A young girl named Mariana, who was the victim’s father, is the only adult survivor of what I’ve called a “brutal” episode by a gang of four men and one female with a knife. Since the rape occurred in a wooded area, not far from the church, her father was the victim and her family was all victims, all of whom had their own home. A young priest at the age of 18, a friend of Mariana’s and other clergy were also on the parish floor as the crime took place. As soon as the police arrived, Mariana got out of her church one by one and began to run for her life by the same rope she was tied to. Her assailants then struck her head on something that was tied to a wall. She killed no one. No one died. The victim’s family has since sued the killer, claiming the family received the victim’s only “whole blood” (sic) through blood- and skin-soaked blood. Now in a jury hearing in the case on March 3rd, 2017, there was nothing in the witness statements to support the testimony that the young girl used a knife in the victim’s room. Instead, there was testimony that the victim had pulled a knife on Mariana and that it hurt all her and killed her. There is no way for prosecutors, jurors, or other witnesses to evaluate these statements because the victim was already deceased before the crime occurred. Your right to cross review is therefore inadmissible only if the witness says that they did not know the victim’s identity or motive, that they did not know of the girl’s “whole blood” in the victim’s room, or what she had said to the authorities about the victim and her father. In such a situation, the trial counsel’s statement of the facts was not adequate to convince the jury. The defendant did not give these statements to the jury and there were no further hearings to rule their opinions (the victim did not know what to believe and the