Post Trial Reflection

1: The main facts presented to the case by the prosecution, was that they believed that Illegal immigrants should get the same rights as US citizens, and that nowhere in the amendments does it mention that illegal immigrants should be treated unfairly. The prosecution did an excellent job of proving their point, and referring them to the constitution. When Calvin got up to counter examine people from the defense he really held his ground, and made even important people, such as the governor, confused about their own beliefs. Also, by being able to present useful evidence in an organized way, they gained a better understanding from me, as a jury member. As for the witnesses, Lupe did a greta job of really taking on the role of an innocent immigrant that just wanted equal rights, because she made her testimony convincing and realistic, which greatly contributed to the prosecution as a whole.


2: The maim facts presented to the case by the defense, was that Illegal immigrants were making Arizona an unsafe environment, and was taking job openings away from US citizens. I believe that along with the prosecution side, their side could've been a little more prepared with their evidence and presentation as a whole. Their witnesses seemed a little unsure about their own information, and their counter arguments weren't that powerful. Other than that, I feel like overall they did, in fact, get their point across . They were trying to make it clear that illegal immigrants shouldn't be able to receive the same rights as humans. They did, for the most part have effective evidence to help their case, but could've went a little more in-depth with it. As for the witnesses, I liked how they chose to use a governor as a witness, because it helped to get an understanding of some ones opinion that had power.

3: - The most significant piece of evidence was from the prosecution side, when Calvin mentioned that no where in the amendments does it say that illegal immigrants don't have the right to a fair trial. To me, by him pointing this out, it just sort of backed the defense side into a corner, because it was in fact the truth. It challenged the defenses point about how illegal immigrants should not get the same rights as US citizens. Calvin's observation really ignited the case, and made me, as a jury member, want to listen to more.

4: - The most significant argument was again, Calvin trying to prove that what the beliefs of the defense witnesses did not clearly connect to the amendments. Because, no matter what is said or done, the amendments are the amendments, and we as people, are supposed to abide by them. So therefore, it became really interesting to see people (defense), try and twist and veer around them, during certain points of the trial.

5: I absolutely do agree with the jury. I believe that overall, the prosecution side was a lot more structured and organized when it came to trying to prove their point to the jury. I mean, both sides did a good job, but when it came down to it, the evidence and creativity of the prosecution side was a lot more powerful, and grabbed my attention a lot faster.

* I think I deserve a 45 out of 50 points because I took good notes, I listened, and in the end I was able to clearly refer back to the trial, and successfully engage into the jury deliberation.