A typical jury is charged with the responsibility of deciding whether a person is guilty or not guilty of what they are charged. We were not a typical jury. Instead of deciding whether or not Oj Simpson is guilty or Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman’s deaths, we decided if he is responsible for the deaths. This changes the dynamic of our jury and the topics that will be discussed.
The jurors in our jury had very distinct characteristics. For example, the Leader guided the discussion in a calm manner while still stating his opinions. The Leader proved to effective when explaining what side he was on and why. The radical juror was fairly stuck in his ways and did not seem to comprehend anyone else’s opinions. The Funny one lightened the mood …show more content…
His points were irrelevant to the case at hand and did not help. The Princess stated his opinions and argued his points. He was fairly dramatic during the jury but was useful. The Smart one helped convince people to switch sides the most with well-formed arguments. The Skeptical one stayed on the not responsible side until the very last discussion day due to doubts. The Angry one yelled a lot and was very passionate. He did end up helping convince jurors but it was also hard to follow him since everyone else was wrong in his eyes. In 12 Angry Men, Juror #3 was not receptive to anyone else’s ideas. He has his opinion and is unwilling or unable to discuss with others. In our jury, The Angry One also exhibited these characteristics. The New juror came in the second to last day and had opinions but mostly kept quiet. The Quiet one did not do much talking except for voting. Every juror plays a distinct part in deciding the fate of the defendant, which showed during 12 Angry Men and during a personal jury when deciding whether or not OJ Simpson was …show more content…
Although it was a unanimous vote, we made a timeline that everyone should agree on to prove that OJ was responsible. In comparison to 12 Angry Men, Juror #8 tries to put himself in the boy’s (who’s on trial) shoes to understand any possible motives. In a similar way, we put ourselves in OJ’s shoes to try to find any possible motive. We then tried to work out if he could commit this crime in a reasonable window of time. We moved a lot of the timeline due to the witnesses’ testimonies and discussion if they were reliable or not. In addition to this, we tried to get accurate times by using Google maps to verify how long it would take to get to one place. We also accounted for typical L.A. traffic around the time of the murders. Still all voted
The jurors in our jury had very distinct characteristics. For example, the Leader guided the discussion in a calm manner while still stating his opinions. The Leader proved to effective when explaining what side he was on and why. The radical juror was fairly stuck in his ways and did not seem to comprehend anyone else’s opinions. The Funny one lightened the mood …show more content…
His points were irrelevant to the case at hand and did not help. The Princess stated his opinions and argued his points. He was fairly dramatic during the jury but was useful. The Smart one helped convince people to switch sides the most with well-formed arguments. The Skeptical one stayed on the not responsible side until the very last discussion day due to doubts. The Angry one yelled a lot and was very passionate. He did end up helping convince jurors but it was also hard to follow him since everyone else was wrong in his eyes. In 12 Angry Men, Juror #3 was not receptive to anyone else’s ideas. He has his opinion and is unwilling or unable to discuss with others. In our jury, The Angry One also exhibited these characteristics. The New juror came in the second to last day and had opinions but mostly kept quiet. The Quiet one did not do much talking except for voting. Every juror plays a distinct part in deciding the fate of the defendant, which showed during 12 Angry Men and during a personal jury when deciding whether or not OJ Simpson was …show more content…
Although it was a unanimous vote, we made a timeline that everyone should agree on to prove that OJ was responsible. In comparison to 12 Angry Men, Juror #8 tries to put himself in the boy’s (who’s on trial) shoes to understand any possible motives. In a similar way, we put ourselves in OJ’s shoes to try to find any possible motive. We then tried to work out if he could commit this crime in a reasonable window of time. We moved a lot of the timeline due to the witnesses’ testimonies and discussion if they were reliable or not. In addition to this, we tried to get accurate times by using Google maps to verify how long it would take to get to one place. We also accounted for typical L.A. traffic around the time of the murders. Still all voted