Sandusky Case Clarification.
ANSWER
Arguments for granting a new criminal trial might include:
- New Evidence: If new evidence has emerged that was not available during the original trial and is deemed credible and relevant to the case, it could be a strong argument for a new trial.
- Procedural Errors: If there were significant procedural errors during the original trial, such as misconduct by the prosecution or defense, jury misconduct, or errors in jury instructions, these could be grounds for a new trial.
Arguments against granting a new trial might include:
- Lack of Substantial New Evidence: If the new evidence presented is not substantial or merely cumulative, it may not be sufficient to warrant a new trial.
- Procedural Default: If the defendant failed to raise certain issues or objections during the original trial, they might be barred from raising them on appeal, depending on the legal rules and time limits.
The factors that could support a judge’s decision to grant a new trial would depend on the specific circumstances of the case, but generally, the judge would consider the strength and relevance of any new evidence, the nature and impact of any procedural errors, and whether the defendant’s right to a fair trial was compromised.
Regarding the impact of a juror from the described demographic (a married, law-abiding father of two children) in a trial involving the murder of a child, this juror’s personal characteristics could potentially have a significant impact on the trial outcome. Here’s a rationale for this:
- Empathy and Emotional Connection: A juror who is a married parent of children may have a strong sense of empathy and emotional connection to the case, particularly if it involves the murder of a child. This could influence their perspective and make them more inclined to sympathize with the victim’s family, potentially leading to a desire for justice and a harsher stance against the defendant.
- Bias and Prejudice: On the flip side, there could be a risk of bias or prejudice if the juror has a strong emotional reaction to the case. They may be more inclined to view the defendant as guilty, even if the evidence is not conclusive, due to their emotional response to the tragic nature of the crime.
Ultimately, the impact of this juror would depend on their ability to set aside personal emotions, follow the judge’s instructions, and evaluate the case based on the evidence presented and the law. It’s essential for jurors to be impartial and objective in their decision-
Question Description
I’m working on a Sociology exercise and need support.
“Role of the Jury” Please respond to the following:
- From the e-Activity, summarize at least two (2) arguments presented for and against granting Sandusky’s motion for a new criminal trial. Identify the most likely factors that you believe would support the judge’s decision to grant a new trial. Provide a rationale for your response.
- John, a married, law-abiding, father of two children is serving as a juror in a trial where a child had been murdered. From lecture 3, determine the significant impact that a juror from the described demographic could potentially have in the outcome of this particular criminal trial. Provide rationale in your response
Fill in the order form and submit all your files, including instructions, rubrics, and other information given to you by your instructor.
Once you complete filling the forms, complete your payment. We will get the order and assign it to a writer.
When your order is completed, it’s assigned to an editor for approval. The editor approves the order.
Once approved, we will upload the order to your account for you to download. You can rate your writer or give your customer review.
