This case appears to be a very strange one, by far the strangest I have ever seen in all my years in this profession. A group of young boys on a plane bound for Australia failed to reach their destination. Instead, the plane crashed on a deserted island somewhere in the Pacific. A nearby ship later saw the fire on the island and rescued the boys. It is the events that took place between the time of the crash and the time of the rescue that brings this case to my courtroom. Jack Merridrew, one of the boys on the island, is being charged on several counts, the most serious being the murders of Simon and Piggy, two other boys in the group. It is difficult to imagine a boy no older than the age of twelve murdering two of his fellow group mates, but it is the job of the prosecution as well as the defense to reconstruct the events that took place on the island to prove that Jack did or did not commit these crimes. I am assuming that Jack is going to plead innocent to these charges, and it is therefore vital that the prosecution provide adequate evidence supporting their argument against him. The same is true with the defense, and if Jack did not commit the murders then I would hope that it can be explained how these two boys actually died. Although I have my own suppositions regarding this case, these opinions will be totally disregarded because it is my job as the judge to be completely unbiased so that a fair and lawful verdict can be reached. I look forward to hearing the arguments of the defense and the prosecution. I will listen to, and consider all evidence that is offered, and from there decide which evidence can be presented to the jury based on applicable law. In my courtroom prosecution bears the burden of proof, and must therefore prove that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is therefore the job of the defense to rebut the evidence and the testimony produced by the prosecution. I as the judge must see to it that these jobs are fulfilled in an orderly way while following the proper procedure that is required in a court of law. Overall I do not think it will be easy to reach a verdict in this case because both sides have very good arguments, however I will do my best to keep an open mind, listen to the testimonies presented by both sides, and judge fairly.
Judge Pretrial Reflection #2:
Today was spent interviewing the three people who have been selected for my jury in this case. The first member, David Gibaldi is from a small country town and is currently working as a zookeeper of reptiles, as well as the head of the local Boy Scout troop. He is also a WWI veteran; something that I think could affect his judgment in this case. When someone is in a war he is exposed to very different situations than most people have to deal with. When subjected to warlike conditions people tend to become less civilized. With people dying all around you and death as a constant threat, a soldier is forced to let go of their civilized behavior and act on instinct in order to survive. Also, the amount of killing and savagery can desensitize a person. Gibaldi may not see murder as the horrible thing that most of us do. He can sympathize with the fact that as a result of the environment the children were in, Jack, if he did in fact commit the murders, may have done so because he felt that killing was his only option. However, the fact that Gibaldi is a Boy Scout leader may result in the opposite attitude. To be a troop leader you have to love and enjoy children. He cares about the boys in his troop, and would be upset if anything bad happened to them. He may therefore be angered at the mere thought of Jack being suspected of murdering two other boys because he can imagine how sad he would be if it happened to any of his scouts. The fact that Gibaldi is a WWI veteran and a Boy Scout troop leader may, if he is not careful, influence his decision about whether Jack is innocent or guilty. The second juror, Tiffany Koo also lives in a small country town. She is currently a homemaker with two children and a husband who is a doctor who went to help wounded soldiers during WWI. Koo may have heard some stories from her husband about the horrors of war and the savagery of men, but unlike Gibaldi I do not think this is enough exposure to affect her decision. However, the fact that she has two children can severely alter her judgment if she allows it to. Koo loves her children very much and can't bear to think of something bad happening to them. Jack is believed to have murdered two boys, relatively close to the ages of Koo's own sons, and it is horrific to think that something so terrible has happened and could very well happen to her own boys. She may not feel that her sons are completely safe from the dangers of the world until people like Jack are locked away where they can't do any harm to her boys or to other children. For this reason she may find Jack guilty of this crime even if she hasn't considered all of the facts carefully because her own emotions can cloud her judgment. The third and final juror Louis Nees, otherwise referred to as Regis Lewis, is a thirty-two year old teacher at an elementary school. Like the first two jurors, Lewis is constantly around children. He may therefore either find it horrifying to think that someone suspected of killing another child should be let free to walk on the streets. However, he may also understand that children can lie and twist around stories to make the even the biggest lies seem true, and perhaps Jack didn't commit the alleged crimes. Also, he has seen through his years of teaching that children think they're invincible and can't be hurt. They make careless choices and it may therefore not have been Jack's fault, but the actions of someone else that lead to the deaths of Piggy and Simon. If permitted, Lewis may let his feelings affect his vote of whether Jack is innocent or guilty. All three jurors have children present in their lives. This fact could, if not monitored, affect the jury's decision. However, it is my job as the judge to make sure that the jurors do not let these feelings alter their verdict. Just as I have to do, they must set aside their own biased feelings and concentrate on the facts and evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense. Jack has a right to a fair trial, and this can only be accomplished if the jury gives him a fair chance. He is innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. If sufficient evidence is not compiled to prove that Jack is guilty then the jury, as well as myself, have no choice but to let him free regardless of how we feel. My main intention is to run a fair courtroom, and give Jack the kind of just trial that he deserves.
Justification of Verdict:
In order to find a person guilty of the crime of murder, whether as an accessory or as the perpetrator of the act itself, the Prosecution must sustain its burden of proof. That burden is a very high one in that the Prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person committed the acts charged. If a reasonable man or woman on the jury has a doubt as to guilt of the party involved, they cannot return a verdict of guilty. It is not for the defendant to prove his innocence because of rights under the law provide that an individual is innocent until proven guilty. Although the jury in this case found the defendant guilty, the judge has the power to set aside the jury's verdict if it is against the weight of the credible evidence.
In this case I, as the judge, find that the Prosecution did not sustain its burden. In the opening statement the Prosecution said that they would prove certain points, namely that Jack is responsible for the murders of Piggy and Simon because during the time on the island Jack devolved from the civilized boy he once was into a savage. He destroyed the things and people around him, as well as brought out the evil in everyone. Although he is only a child it was to be proven that he was responsible for the murders because he is cruel, violent, and brutal. However, the Prosecution failed to sustain its burden. Although these points brought up in the opening and closing statements were good, they were not fully explored or proven in the testimonies. One of the main arguments of the Defense was that Piggy was carrying a spear and therefore appeared threatening to Jack and his tribe. It was then argued that Piggy was killed in self-defense because Roger felt it was necessary to eliminate the threat. The job of the Prosecution was then to prove that Piggy did not in fact appear threatening and that his death was not an act of self-defense. Instead, the Prosecution failed to address the fact that Piggy decided not to carry a spear and was actually holding the conch until it made it's closing statement. Although it made this point in the end, it failed to prove it during the trial because they did not question Piggy or read any passages from the book in an attempt to impeach him, and then validate its position. Whatever is stated either in the opening a closing statement is not evidence. Evidence is only elicited through the testimony of the witnesses. Statements made by the attorneys during the opening or summations, although often persuasive, must be based on admissible testimony. The Defense on the other hand had sufficient evidence to prove what it outlined in the opening statement. In its opening statement the Defense stated that through the testimonies it would show that Simon and Piggy's deaths were not Jack's fault because they were killed by accident as an act of self-defense. Using a quote from the book the Defense proved that Roger acted in "delirious abandonment." This meant that his actions were his own, and Jack did not tell him to push the boulder onto Piggy. The Defense also argued that Simon and Piggy both appeared threatening to the boys in Jack's tribe, and it is for this reason that they were killed. Simon looked threatening because he looked like the beast, while Piggy and his group appeared to be a threat because they were carrying spears when they approached Jack and his tribe. The Prosecution however did not solidly disprove these facts through evidence. Despite whatever personal feelings I may have about this case, I as a just and lawful judge must find Jack Merridrew not guilty of the murders of Piggy and Simon because the prosecution failed to sustain its burden of proof.