According to the prosecution, Arizona was violating the constitution, specifically the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. Two of the founding fathers were called up (James Madison and John Adams), to explain exactly what they meant in the amendments, and a representative of Arizona was called up to explain why he (she) thought that the bills Arizona had passed were wrong.
According to the defense, Arizona was not in the wrong, but only doing their job to keep their citizens safe from the illegal aliens. They called forth the Arizona Governor, a police chief (if I am not mistaken...), and a policeman who had been shot by two 'illegal' immigrants. They pointed out that the country was not doing their job and they only wished to help it keep the people who shouldn't be there out.
I think the most significant pieces of evidence came when the prosecution cross-examined the defense's witnesses- they basically got them to contradict everything that the defense had said up to that point in time. They also got them to admit they were wrong on many occasions - not directly, but still - and if you admit that you're wrong, that seriously ruins your credibility as a lawmaker or police enforcer and so on.
The most significant argument was the prosecution hammering into place that the bill(s) were against the constitution and that states did NOT have the power that the defense was saying they should have if the country wasn't doing its job.
The verdict was guilty - which I fully support. I was on the jury, after all... anyway, it's my own personal opinion, but I did my best not to let that affect my choice and I made it based on the evidence both sides had presented, and the organization, or lack thereof, that they had. I just really felt like the prosecution did an amazing job of hammering their point into place.
-
I think I deserve a 35 out of 50 points because being a juror is not very hard. I just watched (which I didn't fully do...) and helped make the final decision. I was good at the deliberations because I felt like I had a real opinion and say in the matter and it was easy for me to get my pint across, even if I did stumble across my words a bit I knew what I was trying to say. I could have done better at actually watching the trial by drawing less... I'm not very good at maintaining focus and I was constantly drawing throughout the trial, which I feel like was a bad idea (but I did get the gist of what was going on - I just feel like I should have taken more notes on names and positions and such is all).
No comments:
Post a Comment