McNulty 1

Thomas McNulty

Ms. Moser

Period 5

21 April 2017

Response to Mock Trial

This mock trial was arguing the case of Dale Reynolds, a man accused to have murdered

his father in the first degree, with premeditated intent on doing so. The prosecution fought to

prove Dale is guilty of murder in the first degree. The defense fought to prove Dale had only

acted in self defense against his father. I played the part of a juror in this trial, as the jury would

be the group to give the verdict on the account of Dale. Listening to the debate of Dales security

or sentence, I have learned about what trials can actually be like in a way. I have also learned all

of the roles which play a part in the courtroom, and how each of the roles works in the trial. I

now know their importance in the trial, each individually having a specific job which correlates

to the court process. One of the main things I have learned being a juror is the importance of my

specific role, and how each of the jurors play a part in the verdicts deliberation. In the jury

room, there are many different people with many different viewpoints and backgrounds, and no

matter what situation is thrown at them, each will handle it differently than the juror sitting next

to them. These distinct traits in each of the jurors played a part in the process of finding the final

verdict of Dale Reynolds: guilty of murder in the first degree. Every juror brought up specific

points on why they thought what they thought, and many supported their personal verdict with

much passion.

In my personal opinion, Dale Reynolds is guilty of the charges placed upon him, because

there was a specific point of evidence which did not work to his favor. The point brought up by
 McNulty 2

prosecutor Weston Smith, when cross-examining Dale, was something along the lines of: Dale

had retrieved the gun at the same time he had consumed alcohol, making that action questionable

to if he had a clear mind or not. However, he then proceeded to having the gun for around twelve

hours after the drinking had occurred, waiting for his father to come home. Then, as stated, Dale

proceeded to killing his father with two gunshot wounds to the head. This specific piece of

evidence, in my opinion, is a critical blow to the defendants argument, as it shows an obvious

account of premeditation in the story of Dale Reynolds. This point is what turned my original

verdict of Dale being not guilty to guilty of murder in the first degree, as the defense did not

make a proper refutation of this statement.