Anatomy Of A Verdict Analysis
D. Graham Burnette gave fantastic insight into the logistics and feelings of a jury sentencing in his article, Anatomy of a Verdict. Throughout the article he explained just how hard it can be for a jury to sentence someone for a large crime. As he stated, a jury is something akin to, “foot soldiers of justice” (Burnette 2001), which conjures up the image of brave people going off to take on a daunting duty. In many ways, that’s exactly what it is for a real jury, no matter what the case. It can be emotionally, and sometimes physically draining to sit in a deliberations room for hours at a time, discussing at length a fellow human beings future.
During the description of the cross examination, I found it interesting how Burnette wanted the prosecution to lose, simply because of the over zealous reenactment of how the murder went. It’s interesting to see how quickly ideas can change, simply because one of the teams represents itself in an unflattering manner. I’m curious as to how the jury would have seen the cross examiner if he hadn’t put forth such a display, and whether or not that would have greatly impacted the results of the case.
Something I found interesting, was the fact …show more content…
They had all heard the same case, but due to the vast differences in their personal lives, they had all come to different conclusions. With two very strong willed and different individuals arguing, I found it surprising that they had managed to reach a point in which they decided a compromise was best. The idea of compromise, however, brought something completely different into account, the relationship of law and justice. The distinction between the two is very interesting, what really draws the line between the two? Does justice appeal more to emotion and law more to logistics? If that’s the case then how can someone reasonably mix the two in order to get a fair punishment if one is
During the description of the cross examination, I found it interesting how Burnette wanted the prosecution to lose, simply because of the over zealous reenactment of how the murder went. It’s interesting to see how quickly ideas can change, simply because one of the teams represents itself in an unflattering manner. I’m curious as to how the jury would have seen the cross examiner if he hadn’t put forth such a display, and whether or not that would have greatly impacted the results of the case.
Something I found interesting, was the fact …show more content…
They had all heard the same case, but due to the vast differences in their personal lives, they had all come to different conclusions. With two very strong willed and different individuals arguing, I found it surprising that they had managed to reach a point in which they decided a compromise was best. The idea of compromise, however, brought something completely different into account, the relationship of law and justice. The distinction between the two is very interesting, what really draws the line between the two? Does justice appeal more to emotion and law more to logistics? If that’s the case then how can someone reasonably mix the two in order to get a fair punishment if one is