Abstract
This paper examines the documentary of Lee Harvey Oswald (1986) through the jury decision-making process. In particular, the report examines the complexities of reaching a verdict in a high-profile trial. In particular, analysis of the evidence presented, witness testimonies, and any other significant factors influencing the decision-making process will be analyzed in this paper. As evident in the documentary, multiple perspectives and viewpoints on presented evidence are a challenge in reaching the final consensus on the case. In this case, ensuring transparency could have helped to provide a fair trial to the accused regardless of the evidence provided. The case has highlighted the benefits associated with judicial oversight and the benefits associated with deliberation structure in a case. A comprehensive nature involving the jury selection process can be used to improve fairness and equity.
Case Analysis
The film “Lee Harvey Oswald Movie” by Hamilton (1986) is a documentary in which survived witnesses are recalled to determine the innocence or guilt of a man who was believed to have assassinated J.F. Kennedy, U.S. president. Krusch (2020) claims that the public’s strong opinions and emotions about the assassination could have put immense pressure on jurors to deliver a specific verdict aligned with prevailing arguments. Witness credibility could have been compromised in the case as it depends on eyewitnesses. Multiple perceptive could have significantly affected the ability to make consensus in the decision-making process. Numerous factors related to the sensationalism of the case could have significantly affected and compromised the proceedings, affecting a fair trial in the process.
Factors Influencing the Jurors
In the documentary, Oswald is accused of murder, and the media coverage would have heightened opinions and perceptions about his guilt or innocence. As the film develops, the public develops strong opinions and emotions, leading to prevailing sentiments of guilt (Weisberg et al., 2019). The gravity of the crime at hand evoked emotions that would have forced the jury to view the crime negatively without objectivity. Jurors needed to evaluate the existing evidence and inconsistencies in the case and examine the facts leading to the crime. In the documentary, the jurors spend most of their time communicating, failing to evaluate critical evidence presented in the case. Factors affecting group dynamics have also negatively influenced the decision-making process as the group conflicts in their arguments. There is a lack of sufficient defense resources that could have helped to improve the evaluation process.
Deliberation Process
In the documentary, jurors gather in a room to begin their deliberations. While the process begins informally, during the initial discussions, the initial impressions and opinions of the case are also discussed during the developmental process of the case. The communication process is facilitated by a foreperson who leads the engagements and deliberation process. The person ensures that everyone has shared their opportunity and views towards the deliberation process’s development.
The focus is to reach an ultimate consensus at the end of the process (Hamilton, 1986). The ability to consider multiple perspectives in the case helps explain the developments of the case. Since the arguments are not strong in the case, it is evident that reaching a consensus is a major issue. The instructions from the presiding judges also prevent reaching the final consensus during the case’s development. Having multiple interpretations of the case also prevent reaching the final census. The testimonies provided as the documentary progresses are conflicting in a factual sense, a factor that prevents reaching a consensus.
Verdict Justification
The jurors justified their final verdict in this case based on the evidence that has been presented in the trial process. At the end of the film, the juror’s decision was not justified by the testimonies, arguments, and evidence presented. According to Alsup (2022), the jurors in the documentary reached erroneous conclusions leading to a mistrial. The influence of the media, in this case, created bias that influenced the decisions made in the case. The failure to have transparency in the jury decision-making process would have helped improve impartiality. However, as the film progresses, the jurors have decided on the decisions made in the case. This prevents the achievement of the right information that could have helped to improve the decisions made.
Ethical Considerations
Numerous ethical considerations emerged in the case. These involve jurors having to uphold the principles of fairness and impartiality to ensure a fair trial is provided in the high-profile case. Additionally, the jurors needed to make decisions while at the same time avoiding any public pressure in the decision-making process (Krusch, 2022). Jurors are also expected to presume Oswald innocent in the face of the law until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, regardless of the severity of the crime. Ensuring the achievement of transparency in the trial process helps avoid any perceptions leading to undue influence, which is crucial in maintaining public trust throughout the justice system.
Comparison with real-life outcomes
If Oswald had a real-life trial, public sentiments could have significantly influenced the verdict. One of the similarities in the case is that he could have never faced a fair trial due to the increased sensationalism that emerged. The case could not have been transparent because of the high-profile nature of media bias involved in the case. The existing legal complexity and personal biases could have affected the deliberation process in the case. If Oswald had a real-life jury trial after the death of J.F. Kennedy, his case could have been influenced by numerous factors (Weisberg et al., 2019). The media influence could have affected the opinions and perceptions of the case affecting innocence and Oswald’s guilt. In this case, the main difference is that real-life jurors must be impartial and base their decisions on facts. Additionally, the juror’s privacy and safety would be protected in the performance of the case.
Conclusion
Some of the complexities identified in the Jury decision-making process involve public bias, diversity of juror backgrounds and social affiliation that influences different perspectives, misinformation from outside sources, and complex evidence. Once jurors have received instructions from presiding judges to apply the law to the identified evidence, this can create errors in judgment. This factor can influence the decision-making process. In some cases, racial dynamics can also influence the decision-making process leading to the ultimate verdict. Depending on the existing charges, post-trial influences can also significantly affect decision-making. Jurors also face the challenge of maintaining confidentiality and being impartial. To improve fairness in jury decision-making, there is a need to encourage diversity in jury selection, which could help minimize any prejudices and biases in the process. Providing implicit bias training measures could also help to address any issues that can be involved in the process of decision-making.
References
Alsup W. (2022). Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald. New south. Retrieved August 11, 2023, from https://www.overdrive.com/search?q=3FAAF8AA-45C4-4F5E-816C-A66A6CE76735.
Hamilton, 1. (1986). Lee Harvey Oswald Movie. Available at https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0983902/
Krusch B. (2022). Impossible: The case against Lee Harvey Oswald (1st Ed.). ICI Press.
Weisberg H. & Garrison J. (2019). Oswald in New Orleans: a case for conspiracy with the CIA. Skyhorse Publishing. Retrieved August 11, 2023, from https://public.ebookcentral.proquest.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=5479880.
write