Business Law

In the past, the jury learned from the forensic scientists’ testimony; but now, they’re learning from television and a lot of reality shows. Consequently, what they’re learning is not necessarily what is actually done (Honeycutt). However, those jurors who watch criminal investigation television shows do believe that what they’re seeing on TV is what does go on in real life and they expect to see it in court. This is because, according to Shelton, “the more frequently jurors watched a given program, the more accurate they perceived it to be.”

When a day trader is shot in cold blood at his workplace, his widow sues a major gun manufacturer. Holding them responsible for his death, she hires an idealistic lawyer Wendell Rohr to oversee the case. Produced in 2003, Runaway Jury is an American justice film that delves into the use of technology in the selection and manipulation of jurors. The analysis addresses: the story’s plot, tampering, formidable adversary, moral dilemma, and a torts lawyer.

In the movie 12 Angry Men, the jurors are set in a hot jury room while they are trying to determine the verdict of a young man who is accused of committing a murder. The jurors all explain why they think the accused is guilty or not guilty. Throughout the movie they are debating back and forth and the reader begins to realize that even though the jurors should try to not let bias cloud their judgement, the majority of the jurors are blinded by bias. The viewer can also see that the jurors have their own distinguishable personalities. Their personalities intertwine with each other to demonstrate how the jury system is flawed, but that is what makes it work.

The first phase of a criminal jury trial is focused on selecting specific jurors, which is accomplished through a process referred to as 'voir dire' which is a screening of potential jurors. In the criminal trial involving an offense categorized as a felony "12 jurors and up to six alternate jurors may be chosen." (3rd Judicial District, ) Voir dire of the jury involves the prosecuting and defense attorneys questioning the potential jurors and

Since, modern technical advances allow our culture to live in a generation where our society fosters impatience. Hsieh states, “As jurors demand slicker, speedier bite-like presentation of trial evidence, lawyers are hiring visual artists, computer, graphic designers and illustrators to transform piles of documents into light, sound and images,” (586). Of course, the growing need encompasses opportunity for employment in the audio-visual fields. Consequently, jurors are conditioned to

In addition, it is imperative for the judge not to give the jury any improper advice that might affect their verdict. Any advice given by the judge to the jury must not be given privately (Law Teacher, 2016). In order to maintain the integrity of the civil jury system, the problem of judicial influence must be

In court, it is very important to be fair and just. If you or a fellow friend is in the law industry, they will certainly be aware of the challenge consisting of drawing conclusions on people in the jury box and sometimes the people guilty of the crime. Even with all these facts, evidence, and countless papers/reports that have already been read about the client, the conflict/problem and what should be done, many of times cases turn into somebody being falsely accused and thrown into jail, whether that be in a criminal case, civil case or a bail application. This results in unbearable distress to the falsely accused person and his/her loved ones. To make sure that this never happens again, I have invented the Lawnest, a tiny microscopic-Bluetooth

Jurors in our current system have inconsistencies because they either have little experience or are easily

If judges felt they now had to instruct jurors on how to know about matters of fact and on how much to know, it was natural for them to turn to the ideas of their contemporaries who were principally concerned about knowing and who were attempting to convey their ideas about knowing to the lay population from which juries were drawn. This tendency was reenforced by the relative isolation of the judges from their normal source of professional sustenance, the bar, when dealing with jury matters. In normal circumstances, lawyers appeared for neither side in ordinary criminal

The main critique of such an innovation is that it violates the “fair cross-section” requirement and does not maintain or build confidence or at least the perception of integrity in the justice system through jury participation by the average lay citizen. It would also appear that restricting a jury to individuals meeting certain criteria would make the right to a jury trial even less likely rather than increase availability if that same case were heard by the larger pool of average lay jurors. Not only would this reduce the size of the jury pool, but also this special jury would not represent a fair cross-section of society for the case that is to be tried

But what role do jurors play in a trial? If they aren't allowed to know any more than the judge sees fit, does that justify penalizing curious jurors who only wish to be more informed? Does owning a smartphone

these are potentially the jurors that will begin asking for more proof, or for what valid reason

“Trial Lawyers Cater to Jurors’ Demands of Visual Evidence” written by Sylvia Hsiech is about taking evidence from a case and presenting it visually to a jury. Visual evidence has increased in trials due to keeping the attention of the juries and provide another way to present the case. The author states, using this new technology helps jurors with non-visual data keeping their attention focused on the case. Furthermore, the lower cost of visual evidence makes it accessible to all types of criminal and non-criminal cases. The use of visual technology allows the lawyers to present a visual point of view on what possibly happened. It can show a crime scene and present the evidence in sequence to what might of happen. It can also be used to

8. Studies show that jury members retain information up to six times longer when seeing witnesses and hearing them speak, rather than merely hearing a transcript read in court. As the expression goes, "Seeing is believing."

The American jury system ensures an extensive thought process to the evidence of a crime in a case. There were a total of 78,428 criminal cases filed in federal court during a 12 month period, 13,928 criminal trial cases were reviewed by bench trial, and 2,928 criminal trial cases were reviewed by the jury.(Doc.A) There are more than 320