So, since I wasn't in the trial for the last two days, I missed out on a lot. I was left with many questions. One of the questions was what did the witnesses think about the opposing side? For example, when Lupe was up as a witness, she sounded very bias and to me, I felt a little like it was because she had first hand experience of immigration. Even so, she didn't look like she considered the view of the opposing side which I thought was sort of one sided argument.
Another question I had was the witnesses on the defense. I wasn't around to see it, so I really had no idea how the defense was.. well, defending themselves. The only reasons I have now was that they were truing to "protect" their citizens. I read a few blogs from other people and some were talking about how they were taking jobs away from the citizens of Arizona. Was this a point that was brought up in the trial?
Also, there was a few references to prejudices in America like how one of the founding fathers owned slaves. I wanted to know if the trial ever got into that topic because immense skills in connecting things would've been needed. I was personally confused the first time it was brought up. How I envisioned it, the defense would've picked at it and questioned the witnesses of the prosecution to tear apart that argument. Honestly, that probably would've helped the defense more, it would be something that could've perhaps confused the prosecution and made them think twice about who they brought to the stand.
Another question I had was what were some specific events that occurred? How I heard it, there was something about how someone looked like an immigrant and was called out for it. In my perspective, it looks like it has a clear cut answer that it is unjust and unfair. It appears to fall in line with stereotypes and prejudices.
Anyway, I may be rambling, but I thought the prosecution was pretty well organized. From the start, they read the Amendments which was probably one of the best pieces of evidence. I also had the question of how did they support their argument that the Arizona bill was unjust? Did they use examples that compared and contrasted? I would've liked to hear something like, "If blah blah was here, would this person get the same rights?" and have one of those metaphors that really made you think. I think that would've really confused the defense.
Unfortunately, I wasn't there for most of it so I honestly didn't know how it went. I do know the prosecution won, I would've found it a little confusing if the defense won. Even from the limited amount of my knowledge to the case, there was definitely more legal reasoning behind the prosecution then the defense.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Mock trial
Keep in mind I was gone for two days and didn't really get to ask the questions I wanted to. I would've liked to see the new trial.
1. Summarize the facts of the case, as presented by the prosecution. Include relevant witnesses and testimony.
If I remember correctly, I think it was something about the prosecutions again the Arizona law because the law was going against the US Constitution. Basically, they were talking a lot about the amendments like how people have the right to a fair trial. There was also some information that went into illegal immigrants and whether or not what they did on "American soil" still guaranteed them the rights that are in the Constitution, even if they were illegal. I was in the Jury and remembered Calvin asking about what I thought about the distribution of rights and who are allowed the rights in the Constitution. He was looking for jury members who believed in fair rights for illegal immigrants. It think the people who wrote the constitution was brought up, one was James Madison and the other.. I can't remember. Lupe also went up there talking about her experience.
2. Summarize the facts of the case, as presented by the defense. Include relevant witnesses and testimony.
I don't remember much of the defense since I was there only one day and what they were talking about was a bit unclear. I think they were playing a safe card though and went with the whole, "We just want to protect the citizens of Arizona from illegal immigrants because they raise the crime rate." Then they went on to saying how the Constitution was only talking about the rights of citizens and not "illegal aliens". They were defending themselves by saying they were just doing their job.
3. What was the most significant piece of evidence, in your personal opinion?
I was most interested in the bringing up of amendments. It was intriguing to see the connections and how they are really used in court cases. I mean, to us it's just like, "Right to a fair trail" so we sort of brush that off. But for illegal immigrants, that could be a huge life changing amendment that they would want to possible have. This piece of evidence made me think about, "Oh, it is on American soil, does that even count?" It's sort of like when there is something that's on the fence, does it count or doesn't it. To think, hundreds of people's lives could be effected by the decision of giving them rights since they are in the US or not giving them those rights at all.
4. What was the most significant argument made, in your opinion?
I think I remember hearing this as an evaluation (I didn't really pick this up until someone sort of pointed it out to me) but it was something about how Arizona really had no power to pass bills that were against the Constitution. The most defensive argument I heard from Arizona was that they just wanted the citizens to be safe but the prosecution basically told them they were going at it the wrong way and violated the Constitution which was not in their line of change.
5. What do you personally believe the correct verdict should be? Do you agree with the jury? Why or why not?
I was on the jury so I wasn't quite sure what was decided. Personally, I completely support the prosecution, the verdict was guilty. I didn't stick round for the second half, so I don't know what other evidence the defense had (I didn't get to hear from their witnesses) but as I heard it, I thought Arizona looked pretty guilty. They questioned so many amendments and they didn't have a clear answer to their attack on the Constitution. It sort of sounded like, "Oh well... we were protecting people! Come on, we were doing that.. right?" I also remember Calvin being a great lawyer with his confidence and his quick fact connections that was helpful when you were trying to connect ideas to the trial.
1. Summarize the facts of the case, as presented by the prosecution. Include relevant witnesses and testimony.
If I remember correctly, I think it was something about the prosecutions again the Arizona law because the law was going against the US Constitution. Basically, they were talking a lot about the amendments like how people have the right to a fair trial. There was also some information that went into illegal immigrants and whether or not what they did on "American soil" still guaranteed them the rights that are in the Constitution, even if they were illegal. I was in the Jury and remembered Calvin asking about what I thought about the distribution of rights and who are allowed the rights in the Constitution. He was looking for jury members who believed in fair rights for illegal immigrants. It think the people who wrote the constitution was brought up, one was James Madison and the other.. I can't remember. Lupe also went up there talking about her experience.
2. Summarize the facts of the case, as presented by the defense. Include relevant witnesses and testimony.
I don't remember much of the defense since I was there only one day and what they were talking about was a bit unclear. I think they were playing a safe card though and went with the whole, "We just want to protect the citizens of Arizona from illegal immigrants because they raise the crime rate." Then they went on to saying how the Constitution was only talking about the rights of citizens and not "illegal aliens". They were defending themselves by saying they were just doing their job.
3. What was the most significant piece of evidence, in your personal opinion?
I was most interested in the bringing up of amendments. It was intriguing to see the connections and how they are really used in court cases. I mean, to us it's just like, "Right to a fair trail" so we sort of brush that off. But for illegal immigrants, that could be a huge life changing amendment that they would want to possible have. This piece of evidence made me think about, "Oh, it is on American soil, does that even count?" It's sort of like when there is something that's on the fence, does it count or doesn't it. To think, hundreds of people's lives could be effected by the decision of giving them rights since they are in the US or not giving them those rights at all.
4. What was the most significant argument made, in your opinion?
I think I remember hearing this as an evaluation (I didn't really pick this up until someone sort of pointed it out to me) but it was something about how Arizona really had no power to pass bills that were against the Constitution. The most defensive argument I heard from Arizona was that they just wanted the citizens to be safe but the prosecution basically told them they were going at it the wrong way and violated the Constitution which was not in their line of change.
5. What do you personally believe the correct verdict should be? Do you agree with the jury? Why or why not?
I was on the jury so I wasn't quite sure what was decided. Personally, I completely support the prosecution, the verdict was guilty. I didn't stick round for the second half, so I don't know what other evidence the defense had (I didn't get to hear from their witnesses) but as I heard it, I thought Arizona looked pretty guilty. They questioned so many amendments and they didn't have a clear answer to their attack on the Constitution. It sort of sounded like, "Oh well... we were protecting people! Come on, we were doing that.. right?" I also remember Calvin being a great lawyer with his confidence and his quick fact connections that was helpful when you were trying to connect ideas to the trial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
