Courtroom participants professional standards essay

River cruising is a thinking man's cruise. It is good to have you here and we'd like to begin by making a few promises to you: We will never talk down to you or insult your intelligence.

Courtroom participants professional standards essay

A reply from the authors Expert testimony is important for helping jurors make legal decisions when information needed for making those decisions is not common knowledge.

Courtroom participants professional standards essay

Expert witnesses are invited by the courts to testify and share with the jury their specialized knowledge and they may be permitted to offer an expert opinion. Thus, expert testimony often functions as a persuasive message from the expert the source to the jury the audience.

We begin this article with two major theories of persuasion that have emerged in the scientific literature. Finally, we end with some practical applications that attorneys can utilize during witness selection and preparation.

History of the Science of Persuasion The study of persuasion can be traced to the Periclean Age of ancient Athens in the fifth century B. By the late s, a substantial number of different theories and studies on persuasion had emerged, including studies about how such factors as characteristics of the source of the message, the content of persuasive messages, intended audiences of the message, and how the message was delivered influenced the adoption of the position in the message.

The results were inconsistent — showing that the same variables could have a significant impact, no impact, or a negative impact on persuasion in various situations — which led to confusion in the field about how and when messages were persuasive.

By the early s, two models emerged from different teams of researchers that provided a similar framework for understanding the effectiveness of persuasive arguments. These models accounted for the prior inconsistencies in the literature as well by showing how the situation was important for understanding when and how messages would be persuasive.

Both models contend that there are two main paths for persuasion, although they use different terminology. Central Route to Persuasion. For persuasion to happen via central processing, the person evaluating the quality of the argument must both be able to comprehend the content of the argument and motivated to pay attention to the whole argument.

However, jurors may be presented with evidence from experts that exceeds their ability to understand, thus failing to meet the necessary conditions for central processing. Peripheral Route to Persuasion. Thus, people are using peripheral processing when they take cues from characteristics of a message other than its quality.

These cues may make certain heuristics—shortcuts in the decision-making process—accessible. There are many superficial factors that can cause these heuristic judgments, such as the length of a message, the number of arguments made during the message, and the reactions of other people Chaiken, Superficial characteristics of the presenter can also function as a cue for persuasion.

People are more likely to be persuaded by an attractive, likable, and powerful person than they are by a less attractive, likable, or powerful person despite the content of the argument or statement see Chaiken, ; Neal, Researchers primarily use one of three types of studies to examine jury decision-making.

The first is archival. These studies utilize public records of jury trials, such as appellate records, to look for relationships between features of the case and the outcome of the trial.

Researchers conducting archival studies are unable to control the types of data in public records, so their research questions are limited by the content of the records. However, we are not aware of any archival studies that have investigated the role of expert testimony in jury decision-making.

It would be difficult to determine if changes in the verdict occurred because of the expert evidence or due to other related variables. Researchers can also study jury decision-making using jury interview studies. In this method, researchers interview jurors in real trials after the trial is concluded.

Jurors answer questions about how they made their decisions and what factors influenced them.The Spiders Part I: The Golden Sea The Context of the Film Fritz Lang's The Spiders () is a motion picture serial.

Like the serial work of Louis Feuillade, it is made up of an irregularly long series of films, each around an hour in only made two of the four films he planned in this series: The Golden Sea, and The Diamond Spiders are a mysterious gang, who are up to no.

Lexis Advance - Online Legal Research |LexisNexis

Armory Oaks Drive • Nashville, TN • Phone • Fax ©– Nashville School of Law. Courtroom Participants' Professional Standards Essay Courtroom Participants' professional Standards Willie L Jones CJA/ University of Phoenix Abstract Prosecutorial misconduct is defined as the use of deceptive, illegal or reprehensible methods used by a prosecutor, to attempt to persuade either the court or the jury.

Courtroom Participants’ Professional Standards In order for the legal system of the United States to work as intended by the constitution, it is vital for all participants of the legal system to their jobs in accordance with the law.

President's Message.

But don’t take our word for it

I extend greetings to you on behalf of over members of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc., Rho Zeta Omega Chapter.. Alpha Kappa Alpha was established in on the campus of Howard University in Washington DC, and is an organization of women who have chosen to give back to their communities through volunteer programs and services.

Courtroom participants professional standards essay

Prescription drug diversion can be defined as the unlawful transfer of prescription drugs to people they were not originally prescribed for. Prescription drug abuse is a very real concern, even here in mostly rural Adair County.

University of Georgia