trial reflection

Mock Trial:

I was as prepared as I could have been for the trial. All my work was to be done on the day of the trial with the video camera. I was able to get some more experience working with camera angles and things like that. I also got to see the troubles with loosing video. Becauseat the end I accedently recorded over the defenses opening statement. I think that the defense had the best case because they actually had logic backing them up. Whie the prosecution had only hear say as their arguments. But I definitly would say that both sides came up with some very clever arguments on the spot. Next time I will find the perfect place to video tape from before I start. I also wont make the mistake of recording over video. Well I learned about how horrible humans were in olden times. They would kill people for being witches without any proof. But these days I know that people wouldn’t be killed for being a witch anymore. Our judicial system has advanced a lot since then.

Essay:

I really do not know enough about our judicial system to say wether or not it assures a fair trial. I have seen law an order a lot but I wouldn’t say that that counts. I do know that innocent people have gone to prision, so that says that our judicial system isn’t perfect. I would say though that our own mock trial allowed for a fair trial. Everybody knew that the accused was innocent and fortuanetly the jury agreed that he was innocent as well.

I think the most important part of the trial was questioning the witnesses. This was the make or break point of the trial. When the lawyers were questioning them it let the jury see the real information. Its much more concrete than the opening statements because that is just the rhedoric of lawyers. But once you get to the witnesses that is where the real information comes out. One good question to a witness can change the outcome of the trial. That is why it is so important.

I believe that I would trust a group of my peers. They are people that are like me and think like me. They are normal people that can relate to me as just another person way more than a person of the law could. I think that is probably the best way because these people can actually put themselves in your position. I think that if we had the same jury's all the time it would be screwed up. These people would stop feeling compassion. They would be less like you. You would just turn in to another case that they need to make a decision on. WHile if it were a jury of my peers these people would take it seriously. They would take the responsibility very well because them being on the jury is a one time thing.

My role in the mock trial was extremely simple. I was a recorder and I just video taped the whole thing. At first I tried to get a shot of everything. I realized that was too far away and it was hard to see everybody, also the lawyers backs would be turned to me. So I tried a different position. This one required me to move the camera back and fourth between each person talking. This was better because you could see the witnesses and the lawyers very well. The only problem was that I was directly in the way of the balif when he seated the witnesses. So I eventually just held the camera. This way I was able to walk around and get shots of different people. I would zoom in and out, all kinds of stuf. This definetly worked better. The only problem was that it was hard to keep the camera steady so the shot was slightly shaky. The weight of the camera also started hurting my hand after a while. It wasnt that the camera was so heavy, it was just the angle that it is held at that hurts your hand. As far as my reaction to the mock trial I agree that the right decision was made. Obviously he was innocent. But I think that the jury should have maybe pretended they were living in the 1600's and act according to the people of that time by charging him as guilty.

I dont think that something as radical as the witch trials could happen today. Theres no way people these days would allow for mass numbers of people to be killed off of hearsay, as well as being religiously motivated. That definitley wouldnt happen. There are to many people that wouldnt allow it. Also in the court of law these days you need a lot of evidence to put someone to death. Back in those days they just killed and killed thousands of people without any concrete evidence. So no I dont think that something that extreme could happen these days.

Trial Recount:

Jury questioning:

This part was kind of pointless. First of all everybody was already going to be on the jury so there was no reasoning for the questioning. Anyway, the questions themselves were pretty dumb as well. They were simple yes or no questions like "do you believe in witches" that were asked only once to each person, and each person was questioned at random.

Opening statements:

I am having trouble remembering what the opening statements were. I know that They were both worded quite well. They were both quite convincing, yet it was quite obvious that the defense had a much more of an argument. But the prosecution did a pretty decent job. They said things like "we can prove that this man has preformed witchcraft." when really he couldnt.