Today the lecture started out with the ending of last weeks lecture which had to do with juries. He asked who decides what and it came down to the judges decide the law and the jury decides the the facts. An example Professor Allred used of what the judges do would be how they decide the case should go. Judges focus on what laws apply and what the law means and how do you apply hese laws to this situation. "If there are facts we need a jury". This ended last weeks discussion of the jury topic.

We also went into discussion about how can you distinguish who is your peer on a jury and who is not. We agreed that you have impartial juries which is kind of like unbias but you can tell they are different in some ways. Impartial is taking like taking someones side. If jurors are witnesses then their not impartial because they are not taking anyones side their saying what they know and can testify to nothing more or less. A jurors class/gender/age and race was also brought into discussion. This was brought up because when someone is on trial and they look in the jury box they are trying to see how people on the jury look like them. As if they are related but not by identical terms.

Jury of my peers: is a jury that occupies the same social class and that has a very specific need. In roman times you would have gotten people who were in the same social class as yourself. In this day in age America does not have classes in the explicit way that the eariler years had. This would be because class is not a fixed concept. "If I don't know who you are or the person you are hurting then I can't be impartial". When they pick juries they may ask questions about a case just to see what you know about it but as Professor Allred said "How much knowledge is too much knowledge"? At what point is knowing too much about a certain case or any case for that matter a problem?

America is a classless society Chris spoke in class and he basically said how do you know when the people in the jury box are your peers and I agree because everybody wears different clothing so how can you figure out who is with you and who you think is agaginst you because he/she is not your peer? What would be the strongest claim to sayw hich one of these people are my peers. Maybe the person on trial wants the people judging his/her class to be apart of his/her class. If they are not apart of their class maybe the person is thinking how can you judge me and you don't even know who or what I am or capable of.

Our law does not have built in distinctions this is saying that just because you are in a different class does not mean you have different rights. We all live in America and all laws are to be followed by everyone some just choose to bend the laws and can get away with it. Andrea made a statement saying upper classes compete with each other and I fully agree with her because if someone else has something better then you then you have to make you get it or something bigger and better or it could be for land, property anything to stay on top. The British had a class whether it was a lawer class or not they had a class and a place. America is more then just a place its a society and if you dont have a place you dont belong.

Professor Allred spoke about judges and how if they dont follow the rules in the court room that can lead to a mistrial. Going back into juries and this is what he ended with : Judges are going to be able to get the facts from the jury and is going to deliver an opinoin taht says we understand who you are and where you stand in this society and because you this you are either guilty or not guilty.

We have an assignment due on the April 14th
This was a great lecture.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License