1. I think the defendant wasn’t being truthful because he kept contradicting himself and said he didn’t remember to most of the questions asked to him which confused most of us and the jury’s.
2. One of the allegations that was presented onto everyone was the one which said that he grabbed his friend from his backpack to stop the fight when they were in the restroom. That testimony I found more convincing because that’s what the defendant claimed as well as the officer.
Yes, the defendant was being truthful with telling his side of the story. But the defendant didn't take the case serious because probably to him it shouldn't have been taken that far.
The testimony didn't really effect anything from the of the case, I think the false imprisonment was that should've been dropped but with the other charge it was correct. I felt more convinced with the court statement because it missed some parts that the defendant was saying.
1. I don't think he provided any help because he laughed a lot and just said "I don't know" to every question.
2. They both state the story and the series of events for the case, but conflicting testimony is more convincing.
Q1: I feel that in some parts he wasn't being fully truthful because he would trip up on certain points of his story.
Q2: The conflicting testimony and summary of allegations impacted the case in a very important way because it was clarifying what was being said before and during the trial.It was also easier to see when there were solid truths being told and when there were dodgy parts of the story.
Q1.NO the defendant wasn't being very truthful and as well was not taking is very seriously due to his false allegations, plus they did not match up to the statement.
Q.2 Since he was not being truthful this lead the jury to not be able to come to a verdict even though they had plead him guilty.
Q1- No the defendant wasn't being truthful, summary of allegations did not match up with statements. He wasn't taking the case as serious as he didn't have a reply for a lot of questions.
Q2- Because he wasn't completely honest we the jury was hard to render an exact verdict. Even though we gave him the verdict of guilty it was a difucult descicion . In the end he was guilty and we used the information we had.
I believe the defendant was not aware of what he was saying due to his reasoning in everything he said which was whether idk or can’t remember and i feel like he lacked confidence in the case because it seemed he didn’t put enough effort into what he was saying.
The conflicting testimony and summary of allegations impacted the case by how he couldn’t stay by one statement. I found the testimony convincing by how the summary wasn’t put together well or organized.
I believe the defendant was being truthful. The body language and tone presnted seemed acceptable.
The summary of allegions seemed fair. The testimony of the jury was exceptional and seened as if justice wa served.
1. I feel like the defendant wasn't completely truthful because he seemed to get his answers mixed up
2. the allegations against him were more impactful because they were set in stone and it felt he was mixing up his responses and story
Q1: I think the defendant was not telling the truth or either he was mixing up his answer because he seemed pretty perplexed when they kept asking him questions.
Q2: The defendant has gotten in fights in the past and has also been kicked out of his school because of the fighting. He also had bad grades.
The defendant was being truthful. His body language told us a lot and the way he reacted to every question showed us that he was being honest. His tone of voice was calm. He did take the case serious bec the ablility of his emotions.
The evidence that the defendant had showed wasn’t as reliable. It didn’t show what he did wrong. I believe he wasn’t guilty and he was being truthful.
1) I don't believe that the defendant was taking the case seriously he was laughing and smiling throughout the questioning. And I don't really believe because I believe he took the trial as joke and that is why I don't believe him.
2)the fact that their is a conflicting testimony an summary there was confliction on how the defendant actions were in the incident. And the only thing I believe was were the officer and the defendant were in agreement on some event in the statements.