5.3 Critical Thinking

Melissa Hinton CJUS 2050 5.3 Critical Thinking Exercise Adversarial model is a common model used in courtrooms in which a defense and prosecution debate over evidences (physical evidence, witness testimony, etc.) presented by both sides. It is an acceptable “necessary evil”, if you want to call it that, because it forces both lawyers to advocate for their own side and seek out justice by whatever ethical means necessary. Even if a defense attorney believes that their client is guilty, they are not allowed to express that. They are meant to seek out the best possible outcome for their client whether that be accepting a plea agreement or proving that they are not guilty all together. The prosecuting side has the same obligation to their client. Even if the public and both attorney’s feel that a defendant is guilty, sufficient evidence must be proved to either cast a shadow of a doubt, or exonerate beyond a shadow of doubt. An example would be in the Casey Anthony case where Jose Baez (Anthony’s lawyer) didn’t believe her when the case started. Baez stated: Well, you know, when she told me what happened, because of the prior lies, I wasn't so quick to jump on board. So what I made the determination at that point in time is, Look, I'm dealing or right now I have got the client of the boy who cried wolf. And I've got to -- if I'm going to either put her on the stand or go in this direction as -- for her defense, I'm going to have to corroborate it. And I literally made the decision, this is a situation where if I can't corroborate what she's saying, it's useless to me, because it won't stand up against cross- examination. So you don't get into that -- you know, I still had that defense lawyer hat on, and I've always had it on, so you don't get into that situation where you're believing or not believing. It doesn't matter what I can believe. It only matters what I can prove. Baez eventually decided, despite his initial views, that because he couldn’t disprove Anthony, he had to prove the things she was actually saying to him.

Upload
melissa-jean-hinton
Category

Documents
view
78
download
1

Embed Size (px):

description

Describe the adversarial model employed in American courtrooms.Consider whether true justice is still being administered in the light of court room work groups and assembly-line justice. Is this an acceptable “necessary evil” or should courts be forced to operate differently?

Transcript of 5.3 Critical Thinking

Melissa Hinton

CJUS 2050

5.3 Critical Thinking Exercise

Adversarial model is a common model used in courtrooms in which a defense and prosecution debate over evidences (physical evidence, witness testimony, etc.) presented by both sides. It is an acceptable “necessary evil”, if you want to call it that, because it forces both lawyers to advocate for their own side and seek out justice by whatever ethical means necessary. Even if a defense attorney believes that their client is guilty, they are not allowed to express that. They are meant to seek out the best possible outcome for their client whether that be accepting a plea agreement or proving that they are not guilty all together. The prosecuting side has the same obligation to their client. Even if the public and both attorney’s feel that a defendant is guilty, sufficient evidence must be proved to either cast a shadow of a doubt, or exonerate beyond a shadow of doubt. An example would be in the Casey Anthony case where Jose Baez (Anthony’s lawyer) didn’t believe her when the case started. Baez stated:

Well, you know, when she told me what happened, because of the prior lies, I wasn't so quick to jump on board. So what I made the determination at that point in time is, Look, I'm dealing or right now I have got the client of the boy who cried wolf. And I've got to -- if I'm going to either put her on the stand or go in this direction as -- for her defense, I'm going to have to corroborate it. And I literally made the decision, this is a situation where if I can't corroborate what she's saying, it's useless to me, because it won't stand up against cross- examination.

So you don't get into that -- you know, I still had that defense lawyer hat on, and I've always had it on, so you don't get into that situation where you're believing or not believing. It doesn't matter what I can believe. It only matters what I can prove.

Baez eventually decided, despite his initial views, that because he couldn’t disprove Anthony, he had to prove the things she was actually saying to him.

I believe this is the most effective model we have in the courtroom. A drawback of an adversarial system is that you may or may not have the best lawyer for the job. A conviction may also be based on how a jury is emotionally effected by the testimonies and the lawyers’ questions.