District Attorney's Role In Criminal Justice

The two attorneys will present their case before a judge. During the trial the CA will introduce Blanco-Garcia’s confession in which he admits killing Vanessa Pham as she drove him to the hospital. The DA will offer a counter argument that his client attacked Pham because he believed that she posed a danger to him. Furthermore, that the PCP his client took earlier that day decreased his mental capability. The CA will reason that the amount of times the defendant stabbed the victim indicates an intent to kill.

This form of communication was evident nearly the entire time. The judge, Pauline Maxwell, introduced the background of the case and gave closing remarks. Witnesses spoke about what they saw the night of the incident. The attorneys spoke out loud in refutation of the opposing side’s remarks. I can tell that the attorneys and judge have grown accustomed to court by the way they were speaking.

David Feige’s Indefensible: One Lawyer’s Journey nto the Inferno of American Justice invites people from all walks of life to a second hand experience of the criminal justice system hard at work. What is most interesting about Feige’s work is its distinct presentation of the life of a public defender in the South Bronx. Instead of simply detailing out his experiences as a public defender, Feige takes it a step further and includes the experiences of his clients. Without the personal relationships that he carefully constructs with each of his defendants, Feige would not be able to argue that the criminal justice system is flimsy at best, decisions always riding on either the judge’s personal attitudes or the clients propensity towards plea bargaining.

Case Gone Wrong: Anthony vs State of Florida Case No. 5D11-2357 If ever there was a botched case it was this one with inconsistencies on the part of the State being overwhelming. I watched this trial intently and read everything available.

As far as the trial goes, if this even was a trial, it was only in the name. It seemed more like a comedic side show than anything. Taking into consideration that there was foolishness and childish behavior from these grown men everywhere and anywhere. “These defendants wouldn’t even stand up when the judge walked in; when there is no more respect we might as well give up the United States” (The Chicago 8 Trial, An Account).

The Brock Turner case is a very controversial case that spark debate on the subject of white male privilege and the abuse of power. People speculate that the only reason Turner received such a minimal sentence is because his parents are affluent and influential, due to their success and status as a white professional. He was found guilty and the judge gave him a very lenient sentence. Many people saw this as unfair to the girl that was raped and to everyone else impacted by this man 's crime. The judge 's name is Aaron Persky.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you are here because one person in this courtroom decided to take law into her own hands. The defendant, Mrs. Dominique Stephens, murdered the man that she vowed to love. This sole act by the defendant is violation of all morals and her husband’s right to live. Afterwards, she even felt guilty about this violation of justice and called the cops on herself, and she later signed a written statement stating that she is guilty of the murder of Mr. Donovan Stephens. Then the defendant later recanted this statement and said that she only killed Mr. Stephens in self defense.

However, she was the first female lawyer and was only known for that simple fact. Her speech said that forcing an accused person of a crime to pay for their defense was unconstitutional. In an article that details this speech Julianne McShane summarizes her speech by pondering the idea that, “For every public prosecutor, there should be a public defender chosen in the same way and paid out of the same fund”(McShane). This is now one of the main issues with the public defender system nowadays, as public defenders are overworked and there are far

The discretion of the case was significant in the regard of the defense, which countered some contradicted evidences. The evidences from the trial and the hearing preliminaries have revealed that the children were coached. The testimony showed lack of credibility on the issues and showing the significance of the discretion on the defense. McMartin told his attorney that he did not do it and his attorney used his discretion and believed him.

The prosecution defended their side much more effectively since they knew how to twist the evidence to match up Jay’s testimony. For example, the fingerprint of Adnan was found on a map in Hae’s car, and the prosecution found a way to say that he was using the map when he murdered Hae. Even though that is possible, that doesn’t mean

While there are many more concepts of law that the book mentions I feel that these are the most important concepts of law that somehow are the foundations of the legal system in the United

In his play Twelve Angry Men, Reginald Rose brings us back in time to 1957, to a jury room of a New York Court of Law where one man, Juror #8, confronts the rest of the jury to look at a homicide case without prejudice, and ultimately convinces Juror #2, a very soft-spoken man who at first had little say in the deliberation. Throughout the play, many of the jurors give convincing arguments that make one think about whether the boy is “guilty” or “not guilty.” Ultimately, one is convinced by ethos, logos, and pathos. We can see ethos, logos, and pathos having an effect on Juror #2 as he begins as a humble man and changes into someone brave at the end. Although all three modes play a part in convincing Juror #2, pathos was the most influential

Prosecuting Attorney: “Ready for the people, your honour.” Defence: “Ready for the defence, your honour.” Clerk: “Will the jury please stand and raise your right hand? Do each of you swear that you will fairly try the case before this court, and that you will return a true verdict according to the evidence and the instructions of the court, so help you, God?

From an early age I have always had an interest in the legal system, as a child of divorcees the legal system has always had an impact on my life. I have always dreamed about being a family lawyer and have hoped that through hard work and dedication I could make my dream a reality; enter law school, successfully complete the bar exam and utilize my knowledge of the law to help those who may otherwise be left in the cold by the legal system. As I have grown older I have a new understanding of the realities of just how difficult it will be to make my dreams a reality. When writing this application, I had difficulty figuring out what I can say that will set me apart from other candidates. I almost feel as though everything that I will say has been said before and there are most likely some situations that sound more sympathetic than my own.

To say that if you are following an unjust law makes you unjust, it is based by your opinion. People have different meanings of what is just or unjust, thus we cannot determine whether a law is just or