Well both cases were dealt with two guys who are hispanic. One was charged with selling and posession of drugs. The other guy was charged with vandalism. I Agree with the verdict and sentences but I feel that instead of 80 hours is should of been 110 hours of community service for the selling of drugs charge. The question I think would have helped the jury would have cane from the guy who familiar with the gang 'Looniz' . It would have shown that yes there is a real gang that he might be affiliated with.
I agreed with both verdicts. They seemed to be fair for a teenager. In the second case, the jury should have asked about the girlfriend. The court is just fine.
I agree with the verdict of the jury. It was reasonable and accurate of both petty crimes that were committed. It gives both cases a chance to think of what was done.
The court can be improved by gaining a probation officer to make more cases heard so kids dont need to go to a juvenile court
I think the first case was appropriate. Though he lied during his testimony, I believe he had an appropriate sentence. For the second case it was also had an appropriate sentence.
The first case was a shock on how the the young man refused to tell the truth, which seemed to not match any of the reports. The second case was a little more reasonable to the young man's behavior due to family problems, yet, was not acceptable.
I agree with both verdicts and sentences for both cases. The only questions I believe the jury missed in the second case were questions about the guy's life at school, home, and if he was really affiliated with a gang.
I believe the verdicts were not fair. The first case, "Looniz" should have gotten more volunteer hours, I felt that the jury was being sympathetic towards the families' deaths but that doesn't excuse what he did. As for the second case, it was okay.
I strongly agree with both verdicts they were reasonable verdicts in my perspective.
I agree with both verdicts. However, I believe that the first case should have gotten more community service hours, since the young man was caught lying several times. Other than that, I believe both the sentences and verdicts were well thought out.
I agree with the verdict and sentence of the first case because I thought it was appropriate especially because he was caught lying. I cannot say if I agree on the verdict and sentence for the second case because I was a part of the jury for the first case.
In the first case, a young man was taking, selling, and had possession of hard drugs. The defendant was found guilty, which was the right decision because this wasn't the first time it happened, plus he didn't seem sorry. Also, he continued to lie to the jury. For the next case, a boy was caught tagging his nickname at a park. The defendant was found guilty, which I agree with because even though he was sorry, learning from his mistakes will help him.
I agree with the verdict and sentence of both cases. The jury did good in asking questions.
I feel like we went easy on the verdicts, they did deserve the 110 hours especially the individual who was convicted of vandalism. As a jury I felt we did perform appropriately and questioned effectively. One way we could probably better our court is to advise the audience to save themselves the laughter until after dismissal. I cringe every time they urge us to act professional and the non teen court kids start laughing, it just bothers me.
I believe both verdicts were appropriate. I think in the first case the jury could of asked more questions because they kept stoping and it was silent in most parts. In the second case it seemed like the family had a plan on what to say..
I feel the verdict and the sentence, due to the fact that the jury in both cases had everything under control
I believe that both verdicts were appropriate because the jury asked the right questions on both cases and they were able to catch both defendants' true personas.
I agree with both of the verdicts.In the first case,I felt that they could have received more community service hours,and in the second court case,the jury could have asked more questions regarding the guy's life.