Peer Revising Comments on the Twelve Angry Men Persuasive Letter to the Editor Check every comment that applies. If the person whose letter you’re peer revising still needs to do any of the following things



Download 21.93 Kb.
Date conversion20.04.2016
Size21.93 Kb.

Peer Revising Comments on the Twelve Angry Men Persuasive Letter to the Editor

Check every comment that applies. If the person whose letter you’re peer revising still needs to do any of the following things, put a check in the checkbox next to the comment that tells your partner what s/he still needs to do.
YOU STILL NEED TO STATE IN YOUR FIRST PARAGRAPH THAT:
you were on the jury for the trial of the boy accused of having murdered his father or that you were “on the jury for the trial of” and then state a made-up first and last name for the defendant

you know that your "not guilty" verdict was controversial (a lot of people in the public disagree with it)

you’re writing this letter to the editor to persuade the public that when you all agreed to a verdict of "not guilty" you did the right and legal thing

you’re going to explain in this letter to the public WHY your "not guilty" verdict was correct (things the public doesn’t know about because you figured out those things in the jury room during your deliberations and there were no reporters in the jury room)


YOU STILL NEED TO EXPLAIN THAT:
the storeowner (who sold the defendant a knife that looks just like the murder weapon) claims that the murder weapon is the knife he sold to the defendant earlier the day of the murder because it is one-of-a-kind

you (the members of the jury) know the murder weapon (a switch-knife) is actually NOT one-of-a-kind

the reason you (the members of the jury) know the murder weapon is NOT one-of-a-kind is that the eighth juror found one just like it, so there is even a (small) chance the murder weapon is not even the same knife the defendant bought earlier that day

the murder weapon had NO FINGERPRINTS on it

the angle of the stab wound shows that the killer held the switch-knife above his head and stabbed down into the victim’s chest

to stab down into the victim’s chest, the killer would have to have been holding the knife OVERHAND

anyone who often uses switch-knives would know that the ‘correct’ way to hold a switch-knife is UNDERHAND

anyone who often uses switch-knives would use a switch-knife to slash up and into the belly of someone he intended to kill

the defendant has previously been arrested for switch-knife fighting so he’s obviously experienced with using switch-knives

because of the defendant’s experience with using switch-knives, it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY the defendant would have stabbed the victim in the way that the killer did, because the KILLER WAS HOLDING THE SWITCH-KNIFE OVERHAND and stabbing downwards

the reason you know the 'correct' way to hold a switch-knife is that the fifth juror told the jury that he has seen many switch-knife fights himself

the old man who lives in the apartment just below the defendant and victim testified that he heard the boy yell “I’m going to kill you!” and then a ‘thud’ above him right when the murder was happening

the tracks of an elevated train are just a few feet away from the old man’s apartment’s window: so close you could reach out the window and touch the tracks

a noisy elevated train was roaring past the OPEN window of the old man’s apartment at the time he claims he heard someone yell “I’m going to kill you”

the other witness, the old woman, testified that the el-train was going by at the time of the murder

it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that the old man could have clearly heard the yelling above him with the noisy el-train rushing past his open window in the seconds before (and during) the murder

even if the old man did hear the yelling, he PROBABLY COULD NOT have heard the voice well enough to be able to correctly identify whose voice it was

you had a diagram of the apartment in which the murder happened (presented as evidence in court and which you could/did look at again in the jury room)

this diagram of the murder scene includes measurements of distances

the apartment of the old man who testified is exactly the same as the apartment where the murder happened, so the diagram of the murder scene is basically a diagram of the old man’s apartment, too

according to the diagram the distance from the old man’s bedroom to his front door is about 55 feet

the old man testified that after he heard the ‘thud’ in the apartment above him, he got out of bed and got to his front door in 15 seconds

the old man testified that when he got to his front door he opened his front door and looked out and saw the defendant running down the building’s stairs

the old man had walked (limped) very slowly to the witness stand in the courtroom due to having had a stroke not too long ago

the eighth juror re-enacted the 55-foot walk from the bedroom to the front door while the second juror timed him

during the re-enactment, the eighth juror limped the measured-off 55 feet even more quickly than all the jurors had seen the old man walking in the courtroom

it took the eighth juror 42 seconds to walk the 55 feet, even though he was going faster than the old man had walked to the witness stand in the courtroom

it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY the old man could have made it from his bedroom to his front door in the 15 seconds he had claimed during his testimony

although she was not wearing glasses in court you know the old woman who testified does usually wear glasses

you know that the old woman who testified usually wears glasses because you saw marks on the bridge of her nose that could only be made by eyeglasses

the old woman testified she was in bed trying to get to sleep when she happened to roll over in bed, look out her window across the way, and she witnessed the murder through the windows of the last two cars of the passing el-train

no one wears eyeglasses to bed to try to go to sleep

the old woman testified that just one second after the murder, the lights went out in the apartment where the murder had just happened

the old woman would probably not have had time to have put on her eyeglasses to see the killer


YOU STILL NEED TO:
include at least one unique thing that your specific juror did or said in the play

sign your letter with both your juror number (from the play) and a made-up name or with your own name

write in your last paragraph that you have now justified your "not guilty" verdict on which you all unanimously agreed, thus freeing the defendant

write a final thought (or opinion) on the legal process or the legal system and/or your experiences on the jury



make sure you have CORRECTLY used the following legal terms in your letter: defendant, acquit (or acquitted, or acquittal), burden of proof, defense, prosecution, reasonable doubt, presumption of innocence

PUT YOUR NAME AT THE TOP OF THIS ASSIGNMENT


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page