Comprehension and Reflections: Have these written on paper to discuss in class Tuesday
Before the trial:
What stereotypes and prejudices did the episode highlight?
What crime(s) were the defendant accused of?
Which elements of crime did the state (crown) try to prove and what evidence did they use? Eg. witness testimony of _________, …
Why did the accused seek to defend himself Pro Se? Why was he able to do so? Why did the judge ensure there was another lawyer as back - up counsel?
During the trial:
What defence did the defendant try to prove?
Witness testimonials:
victim - why was she angry at the assistant prosecuting attorney? Did she do anything wrong? Explain.
Dr Olivette - psychologist
Did her testimony support or refute his defence? Explain.
Sister - why did the sister agree to testify on behalf of the prosecuting attorney?
End of the trial:
What was the outcome? Explain how this outcome was achieved.
List any questions regarding court process, arguments, or other that you have as a result of this case.
So, just hypothetically, if the defendant happened the evade arrest after not showing up to take medication, and ended up committing man slaughter, would he be sentenced to death? Because the fact that he was let out once already because of lack of evidence makes me curious.
ReplyDeleteHe was not let out earlier due to a lack of evidence. He paid for his crime of the time - it was plea bargained and he had not been having a psychotic break at the time of the previous crime.
ReplyDeleteIf he happened to commit another crime under the parole conditions of this crime, it would still need another trial as it is a different crime. So, again, the accused would be presumed innocent until proven guilty and the question of his sanity at the time of the crime as well as his fitness to stand trial will be at issue. Chances are that his parole would be revoked pending his new trial as he broke the conditions placed upon him.