Monday, March 2, 2015
2A-Sammi Grant
Listening to all the evidence and looking at the whole picture is a huge part of the case and i think juror 8 did an excellent job of that, because after looking at all the evidence the other jurors started to realize that maybe there was more to the story, and that maybe they were wrong about the boy. Juror 8 really knew how to persuade, because without him, the other jurors would've gotten no where.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that Juror 8 was very informed on the issue and he made sure that he got all of the information. I don't agree with, however, the fact that they would've gotten nowhere without Juror 8. I think they would've gotten somewhere, it just would have ended in the boy going to the chair, which no one but Juror 3 really wanted. And Juror 3 didn't actually want the boy to go to the chair once he got all the facts.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you, Sammi. Juror 8 was very good at persuading his audience into believing that the boy was innocent by presenting the facts. Juror 8 was able to use not only personal experiences but factual evidence that proved that the jurors statements were wrong.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree, you have to make sure you are really paying attention and listening to a trial when it involves a mans life. If you are careless and don't listen and really consider both sides of the story, you could put an innocent man in prison. The only juror who did this was eight and he convinced the rest of the jury that there was more to the trial that they didn't realize. If juror eight hadn't done what he did the outcome would have been very different.
ReplyDelete