Bryant-Milam Trial Analysis

Democratic societies like Canada and the United States follow the unwritten and underlying principle of “rule of law”. The rule of law ensure that a certain level of procedural justice are achieved in trials, as they provide the court with a basic grid of evaluation. However, such procedural processes were not respected in the Bryant-Milam trial, as the the two social categories of race and social class tarnished the processes of the trial, fostering impartial judicial proceedings and ultimately disallowing justice. The trials ability in achieving justice was deterred as occupational status and race contaminated and fostered impartiality amongst the jury, the witnesses and the provided evidence; three of the fundamental components of a judicial proceedings. Firstly, the jurors of a trial are of …show more content…
In 1950’s the Tallahatchie population was physically dominated by non-white individuals however, it was politically dominated by the white individuals. There was a total of 9,235 black individuals whom were of age to vote, yet none of them were registered voters. Essentially, 0% of the 9,235 people had a voice in their county’s political life. This inherently resulted in an all white jury in the Bryant-Milam trial. Similar issues arose in the Scottsboro boys trial. Surely, there was a “white perspective” in the Bryant-Milam trial, indirectly influencing the courts proceedings and final judgements. This prejudice was evident as one of the defence attorneys declared that “After the jury was chosen, any first-year law student could have won the case.”. Essentially, the entrenched racial stereotypes exploit the characteristics of a geographic region, ostracizing black individuals from the the region’s legal processes. Another element of a fair trial is the neutrality of the witness panel. During a witnesses testimony, witnesses are asked to reiterate their experiences with respects to the crime. This is essential to a trials proceedings as witnesses are theoretically