Topic: Beyond a Resonable Doubt
You may focus your comparative analysis on any stage or concept of court process. Quality is key for this part. Covering more concepts is not necessarily better. For example, I’d rather have you focus intently the concept of a “sequestered jury” and really dig into process, procedure, opinions, purpose, origin, case law, etc of all things related to sequestered juries, than cover jury selection, juror challenges, jury instructions, and jury deliberations superfically and incompletely. Pick something that interested you and dig in!
Requirement #1: Your comparative analysis will clearly demonstrate your understanding of “law on the books” for your selected stage/concept. What did you learn in the course about the form, function, process, goals or procedure for your selected stage/concept. Demonstrate your expertise of the technical components of your selected stage/concept. Break down your stage/concept and explain the details, clearly articulating all you know about the topic.
Requirement #2: Apply your stage/concept. Your comparative analysis will also clearly demonstrate your understanding of “law in action” as it observed in the Zimmerman trial. How did the reality of the trial stage/concept compare to how criminal court process is “supposed” to happen? Were there any notable strategies, methods or occurrences that greatly impacted the trial? Show how you can understand a “real-life” trial better now that you understand the technical aspects of trial. Focus on your stage/concept. You may focus your comparative analysis on any stage or concept of court process. Quality is key for this part. Covering more concepts is not necessarily better. For example, I’d rather have you focus intently the concept of a “sequestered jury” and really dig into process, procedure, opinions, purpose, origin, case law, etc of all things related to sequestered juries, than cover jury selection, juror challenges, jury instructions, and jury deliberations superfically and incompletely. Pick something that interested you and dig in!
Comparative Analysis: Minimum 3 pages (a page = a full page of 12pt Ariel font, double spaced)
Law on the Books is the technical, formal description of how criminal court procedure and stages are supposed to go. All the “book learnin” you’ve been doing this term is Law on the Books. Law on the Books focuses on terminology, established purposes of the stages, and represents the intent of lawmakers as they designed the features of the criminal court system. This is a technical, procedural, “perfect” process. When the writers of criminal justice process envisioned the process, they imagined every little detail, they supported their process with the perfect balance of power, constitutionally sound practices, ultimate fairness, and impartial process. For example, if the process of jury selection went exactly like it has been designed- the challenges were utilized appropriately, the goal of creating a perfectly impartial jury of the defendant’s peers was met, the process went along with no hitches, it played out exactly how the jury selection process is “supposed to”.
Law in Action is the practical application and how criminal procedure and stages play out in reality. All the Zimmerman footage you’ve been watching this term is Law in Action. Law in Action focuses on how the human element of criminal justice impacts the pursuit of justice, and represents the reality of how the procedures and stages are actually applied, the effects of application and the consequences of human influence on the system. This is reality- the human-influenced, discretion-filled, emotion-packed, actual processes as they unfold in the criminal justice system. Yes, there are formal “perfect” “technical” criminal justice processes established. But, the truth is that our system functions under the influence and constraints of real life. For example, the jury selection process still has to be conducted according to the rules of jury selection (it has to be technically correct- “law on the books”) but we know that attorneys are good at manipulating the process. An attorney may get really good at doing things technically correct, but also with bias, prejudice, preference toward specific jurors. It’s not that they are going about the process unconstitutionally, but rather, they have learned how to game the system (i.e. hire jury consultants), take advantage of technicalities (i.e. using challenges strategically), manipulate the process toward a favorable outcome. It’s a far cry from “law on the books” as the black and white technical process, goals and boundaries are implemented and carried out in real life (or “law in action”).
Sometimes the departure from law on the books is small. The process, as it unfolded “law in action”, was done mostly in conformity to the technical “law on the books”. In other cases, you’ll see wildly different processes, so much so that sometimes the process is deemed unconstitutional.
Your job is to acknowledge the differences/similarities and discuss. Compare how things were “supposed to go” with how they “actually went” in the Zimmerman trial and whether those differences undermined the court process, created an unconstitutional situation, violated the defendant’s rights, was an appropriate action within the bounds of “technicalities” or took it too far….etc.