The Judge’s Instructions to the Jury
Following the final summation, the judge wi
The Judge’s Instructions to the Jury
Following the final summation, the judge will sometimes give specific instructions to clarify the issues to be considered.
For the defendant, Mary Barnett, to be found guilty of Second Degree Murder, the prosecution must prove that she intended to kill her daughter, made a conscious decision to commit the act of murder in the moment (without premeditation), and was aware of the consequences of her actions.
On the other hand, Mary’s questionable mental statenecessitates that we also ask: Did she did intenddestructive results? Was she then guilty of irresponsible behavior that was likely to result in harm? How guilty? And is she mentally competent enough to have made a decision knowing full well what the consequences would be; in short, was she was sane enough at the time of the crime to know right from wrong?
In the same way that words are the vocabulary of language, concepts are the vocabulary of thought
In the same way that words are the vocabulary of language, concepts are the vocabulary of thought. Concepts are general ideas that we use to bring order and intelligibility to our experience. They give us the means to understand our world and make informed decisions, to think critically and act intelligently. The process of arriving at an informed conclusion regarding this case involves understanding the concepts of “sanity” and “insanity.” In order to conclude that the defendant was guilty of “irresponsible behavior that was likely to result in harm,” it is necessary that we believe that she was responsible for her actions and their likely consequences: she knew what she was doing, chose to do it freely, and so must be held accountable.
On yet another hand, if we are to conclude that the defendant is not guilty of the charge, we must believe that she was not responsible for her actions. We must believe either that circumstances interfered with her ability to make a free choice or that it is unreasonable to expect that she would have been able to anticipate the destructive consequences of his actions due to her mental condition or state of mind at the time.
Assignment:
To help plan out the argument in your essay, list the reasons that might lead one to conclude that Mary Barnett is guilty as charged. In a second column, list the reasons that might lead one to conclude that she is innocent. Try to focus your list on factual evidence from the case rather than opinion or other outside considerations. Looking over your lists, decide which list has the most believable evidence to support it and explain your reasoning in a brief paragraph.
The Premise of the Trial
On January 23, the defendant, Mary Barnett, left Chicago to visit her fiancé in San Francisco. She left her six-month-old daughter, Alison, unattended in the apartment. Seven days later, Mary Barnett returned home to discover that her baby had died of dehydration. She called the police and initially told them that she had left the child with a baby sitter. She has been charged with the crime of second-degree murder: intentional murder without premeditation. For a defendant to be found guilty of second-degree murder, the prosecution must prove that he or she intended to kill someone, made a conscious decision to do so at that moment (without premeditation), and was aware of the consequences of his or her actions. If convicted, she could face up to eighteen years in jail.
Before We Start: On Critical Thinking in the Trial of Mary Barnett
Critical thinking involves carefully considering all angles and possible outcomes before making a decision or forming an opinion. Just as in a research project, we wouldn’t want to be fooled into believing unsubstantiated claims, or listen to non-experts, or allow our emotions to dictate our beliefs, in The Trial of Mary Barnett, we also want to avoid basing our verdicts on faulty logic, poor reasoning, or non-credible information. In this era of “fake news” and anonymously spread information online, it has almost become normal to absorb a headline on a social media site and assume the contents of the article are credible. That’s probably how flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, Holocaust deniers, and so on have gotten an audience. As critical thinkers and academics, we have to be vigilant about the information we receive and carefully analyze it for accuracy.
Unfortunately, in this trial and in real life and in research projects, it’s not as simple as labeling information credible or not. Quite often, we are faced with information that is a mixture of credible and not credible, so it’s hard to sort out the useful facts from the useless ones. However, probably because we have grown up in a world where we are constantly faced with a barrage of information, we are actually pretty good at it!
Trigger Alert: It’s tempting to leap to a conclusion in the trial because of the highly offensive nature of the case. Be cautious of the temptation to feel angry at the defendant and immediately want to convict her before you’ve heard the entire case. Also, be warned that this case involves a dead child and (possible) mental illness.
Because this is a textbook exercise, it isn’t real and there is no right answer. There’s a well-argued and well-supported one (for any verdict). The trial is deliberately set up to introduce “the basics” of argumentation. You’ll have a chance to read about the outcome in the “real” case at the end of the unit, but the facts in the real case have been manipulated so much, this is almost a different case.
The Basics of Argument
The basic components of an argument, which we will return to in more depth during the trial, are:
Logos: Facts and evidence that support your position. This helps to prove that your argument is true. Toulmin Logic is a method for introducing evidence in an argument which we’ll cover in some depth during this unit.
Ethos: 1) Establishing credibility as a writer or speaker; 2) Making ethical or moral appeals(being on the side of right vs. wrong) to a reader. This helps establish that you are trustworthy and that your argument is a moral or ethical one. Ethical appeals can be extremely powerful: our moral belief systems are quite strongly grounded, and we are rarely able to violate our own beliefs, so this can be used to our advantage.
Pathos: Emotional appeals. These help make your reader of listener care enough to have an opinion; however, they also can be easily misused to manipulate readers into feeling outrage, sympathy, sorrow, fear, joy… Be especially cautious and fair when using pathos. And note where you yourself feel emotionally manipulated. These are red flags that an argument isn’t credible.
Counterargument: This is a section of an argument that objectively states the opposing arguments (what those who disagree with you think) and then refutes (or responds to) these objections to your position. It shows your readers or listeners that you understand their position thoroughly and are transparent about it, but that you have reasonable objections or doubts about the opposing opinions.
Qualifications / Complexity: As you’ll see, some evidence is questionable or tainted by bias, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be used in a valid argument. However, presenting possibly biased information without acknowledging the bias can undermine your credibility. Also, some facts can be interpreted in multiple ways. At the end of the trial, you’ll see the lawyers make closing statements, based on the exact same information from the trial, that say the evidence proves Mary is guilty and that Mary is not guilty. Explaining how you interpret the factsand why you believe or don’t believe certain people or facts is important. Toulmin Logic will help us with this.
Logic Models: Use of a logical structure to present your information. We have a separate page on Inductive and Deductive Reasoning ahead.
A Quick Look Ahead….
So, how is this going to go down? I’m so glad you asked. First, we’ll look at the assignment. Then, we’ll start reading through the trial: jury selection, witnesses, closing statements.
By design, we’ll proceed at a painstakingly slow pace, pausing in discussion forums to comment on, analyze, dissect, and question each testimony before moving on. Because that’s what critical thinkers do.
We’ll also stop along the way to discuss the basic concepts mentioned above, in a “deeper dive,” and you’ll have the opportunity to discuss and debate the trial in private journal posts and publicly in an open forum.
Note that the essay and questions following each testimony are graded and required parts of the assignment.
And finally, this is important…..Don’t merely navigate through the trial pages sequentially!
A word of advice: unlike most of the modules in this class, where the best way to navigate through the module is to go through each page sequentially, this trial works best if you don’t simply do that.
First, I’d suggest navigating through sequentially. Read, answer the questions, and comment as you go.
However, because of the nature of critical thinking (which we have just discussed), and trials, and in the interest of remaining open-minded, you can and should backtrack through the trial as well, moving forward and backward to fact-check, or compare testimonies, or to reassess or re-evaluate what you have heard and who said it.
Note that our first impression of people–in this case, witnesses at a murder trial–is not always accurate. And in a trial, information is presented in small pieces, one witness at a time, some of whom contradict one another. What one witness says may cause you to re-assess what an earlier witness said.
You may even want to go back to earlier discussion posts when you change your mind about a witness or the significance of what they say and amend your original comment. (Don’t delete or edit your earlier comments, though: it’s better to document what changed your mind and caused you to re-evaluate the witness but commenting on your own original post).
In any criminal investigation–as critical thinkers and as researchers–we form “working theories” and revise them as we go: as new information is introduced or uncovered, then the theory changes!