Sunday, March 1, 2015
5a-Haley H
It is essential to look for facts when in a court room. Juror 8 would only accept evidence if it was factual or could be proven. At first, many jurors would make decisions on the boy's half based on their assumptions or opinions on him. The evidence for the murder was very vague and needed further interpretations in order to know what was true and false. Juror 8, tried to interpret what evidence was factual or not. Many of the jurors, however, assumed that all the evidence was right and that there was no need for further interpretations. Finally Juror 8 was able to let the other jurors see the evidence in a new light to make their decision.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree, the facts seen had to be proven to all the jurors there. They went over all the arguments and re ran evidence and looked for the flaws to come up with the truth
ReplyDelete100% agree with you that when working on the jury of a trials the facts of the case are more important than personal assumptions/ observations of the defendant. If juror 8 didn't care than none of the jurors would have looked at the facts. And all of the jurors would have stereotyped the boy, and maybe cost the boy his life based on a guess.
ReplyDeleteI also completely agree with you on that, the evidence was vague they didn't have a lot of evidence to go off of they couldn't do much with it they had to something. They needed it to come to life and react it. By them doing it they were able to get more evidence and have a better understanding. Which had a big impact on what they thought.
ReplyDelete