October 2016

10/17/2016

Q1: How does the fact that the defendant had her cell phone with her when both her and her parents claimed she didn't affect her credibility? Also the defendant in the First Case Considered herself the Victim in the situation, what does this say about her?

Q2: Why did the defendants mother's attitude not affect the case? She appeared careless from time to time do you agree or disagree? Do you think it has to do with the jury being to focused on her dad? Also do you think this defendant had previous stealing Experience why or why not?

Lizie Montejano

10/20/2016 01:48:52 pm

Q1: Her having her cell phone when her parent's claimed she didn't makes her credibility mean nothing because if she lied about that who knows what else she was lying about. Her making herself seem like the victim makes me think that she was not taking he situation she was in seriously and was trying make us feel bad for what she did.
Q2: It didn't really effect the case because she wasn't really putting much input in what was happening. I don't really think that it had anything to do with her dad because the mom still took it very lightly. I do think that she had previous stealing experiences because the way that she explained what was happening kinda made it seem like if she had planned it.

Danielle Rosales

10/20/2016 08:06:03 pm

Q1: The fact that the defendant had her cell phone after claiming she was not allowed to use it showed that she isn't trustworthy and her testimonies most likely could have been false. Also, she tries to make herself out as the victim to avoid responsibility for her actions.
Q2: The defendant's mother's attitude did not help the case because she did not provide a lot of relevant information. I don't believe the mother's attitude had anything to do with the dad because he is not around in the mother's and defendant's lives. She may have had a previous stealing experience because both the defendant and the mother were not visibly upset, as if they have been through this before.

Haya Villarreal

10/20/2016 08:43:52 pm

Q1:The fact that she did have her phone on her even after saying that she was strictly off it made it seem that she was exaggerating the truth about not only her punishment but the case as well. After saying that she felt like she was the victim, it seemed like the whole case she was trying to make it seem like she was the one that was tricked into taking the items and tried to make her self look good by altering the story. Also, earlier, before she said that she was the victim, she said that the items she took, she would plan on using them on her self and then after a few questions she said that she was betrayed by her friends because she got caught with the bag her friends were just putting in items to steal.

Q2:The fact that the mother seemed relaxed through out the case was because her and the defendant have gotten closer to ever since her father had left so maybe they talked it out. I do think she had previous stealing experiences because she said that it wasn't planned, and it was in the spur of the moment and that she wasn't pressured into stealing. She was asked if the items she took were items she had been wanting and she said something like "no I just thought they looked pretty and decided to take them". She wasn't told to steal, wasn't peer pressured into taking the items and she basically looked at them and thought I'll just take these, even though she said that she had money to purchase these items. For a person who has never stolen before, she was very quick to the thought to steal.

Gisselle Sainz

10/20/2016 09:13:03 pm

Q1: The fact the defendant was clearly still in possession of her cell phone when it was affirmed to be taken away as punishment leads us to assume that the defendant was not honest during questioning which ultimately affects her sentence from the jury. The defandant claiming she was the victim during the theft demonstrates how she may not fully comprehend the consequences of her actions or the toll her theft left on the Sephora store which is not the message we want her to receive out of this experience, but instead we want her to realize her mistakes so that we can possibly ensure she will not commit a similar crime in the future.

Q2: The mother did not seem to show a big reaction towards her daughter stealing during the teen court trial, however we must also consider the crime had occurred a month or so before the teen court trial so the mother probably did have time to establish her emotions and thoughts towards her daughter so that they did not seem too apparent in the time of the trial. It is possible the defendant has a history of stealing of maybe small items, but this was definitely the first time she had been caught because she did display much worry and distress during her questioning as though it was something that had never occurred before.

David Hernandez

10/20/2016 09:17:22 pm

Q1: I believe that being in possession of her phone makes both, her and her parents not very credible. Both her and her parents said she did not have her phone for an indefinite period of time. I think that if they would've said something about exceptions to her punishment the phone in her pocket would make more sense. However, the fact that they did not even mention the fact that she had her phone makes me question their credibility. When she said she was the victim it made her seem like she was not very serious about her actions. In addition to this, it made her seem like she didn't think what she did was very bad.
Q2: I believe that the fact that the jury put a lot of attention on the father took attention away from the mother's attitude. I think that she could have possibly stolen before because of her situation at home. Maybe she just wanted attention due to the fact that her parents are separated.

Rafael Gonzalez

10/21/2016 12:16:44 pm

Q1 - The fact that she had her phone while she claimed that her parents took it implies that the defendant was not entirely truthful with the jury and this absolutely lowers her credibility. Also, by stating that she believed that she was the victim in the crime, it is shown that the defendant is likely a defensive and selfish person because she was only thinking about herself.

Q2 - I don't think that the defendant's mother seemed careless of the case because she cooperated in answering questions when she got asked questions by the jury. Even though the questions about the father were personal, I believe the defendant and the mother were both truthful about their situation with him and they seemed to have gotten over that stage of their lives. I don't think the defendant had stolen before because she had seemed truthful during the session.

Destiny Rivera

10/20/2016 09:34:38 pm

Q1:By the defendant claiming that she did not have her cell phone when she did, affected her and her parents credibility negatively.It showed that even under an oath they still were untruthful and left information out that was not shared with the court. This shows that because the defendant was given her phone, then she might have been given other privileges by her parents. The phone also implied that there may have been other dishonest statements made by the parents and/or defendant. The defendant felt victimized because her friends left her with the stolen items. Although she may have felt betrayed, she was not the victim of the situation. She was not the one being negatively affected by what happened, she is only getting the consequences she deserves. If she admits to not being the victim, she may finally realize that even though it was an impulsive action, it was a decision she made.

Q2: The mother of the defendant's attitude did not really affect the case because she did not show much disappointment. If she would have shown more disappointment the defendant may have been a little more nervous or answered questions more carefully. With the jury asking too many questions about the dad, more information from the defendant was not able to be collected. If the dad did not have much of an affect on the reason why she stole, then more questions about other problems in her life could have been asked. If the defendant had past stealing experiences she may haven shown more anxiety when questions about past experiences were asked.

Brooke Henry

10/20/2016 09:39:13 pm

Q1 : The defendant having her phone after not only her saying she didn't have it but her parents saying that as well makes her credibility overall pretty insignificant due to the fact she was under oath as well. Also her claiming herself as the victim shows how she may think she is not at fault here perhaps having her mind frame believing she did nothing wrong. Her understanding what actually happens once she does what she did is something she really needs to come to grips with.
Q2 : The defendant's mother seemed to not really care what her daughter did good or bad things seemed to nothing to her almost. The mothers careless attitude seemed to not effect the case too much overall because her input was very slimed. I believe the jury had the tendency to move more into the father direction because they weren't again getting a lot of input from the mother. In my opinion , I think the defendant may have a history of stealing before because she most likely believes she can get away with it , with how her relationship is with her mother.

Emily Puga

10/20/2016 11:01:42 pm

Q1: Her having had her phone with her when both her and her parents said she did not have it makes them not very credible. If they said the phone was taken away, it shouldn't have been in her back pocket. Her claiming that she was a victim makes her seem likes she cannot take responsibility for her actions. It also made it seem as if she did not want to take the punishment.
Q2: I believe that the Mother's attitude did not affect the case. I feel that the attention on the father was more or less why she seemed more careless because she must have felt as she did not need to put in any input. Also, I do think she had previous stealing experience because the story made it seem as if it had been planned.

Alexandra Aldana

10/21/2016 07:38:59 am

Q1: The fact that the girl had her phone makes her and her parents seem like liars. Her parents said she had her phone taken away completely and she didn't bother mentioning that she had it with her that day. In addition, the fact that she called herself the victim makes her seem like she doesn't want to face the fact that she made her own choice. It makes her seem like she didn't really care about what she had done.
Q2: I feel that the jury focused too much on the dad and not enough on the mother. I think that the mother's attitude showed that she really didn't care much about what her daughter did. Due to the fact that her mother was so careless, I think the girl might have stolen before.

Yulissa Chavez

10/21/2016 07:40:31 am

Q1: The fact that the defendant had her phone affects the credibility of both her and her parents. The jurors and audience of the courthouse may become skeptical of the the punishments the parents claimed to give their daughter for her actions. As a result of having a lenient punishment, the daughter may not have realized that what she did was wrong and could do it again. The defendant saw herself as a victim probably because she was not aware on how the store is affected and only saw the issue in her perspective being that only she was the only one caught and getting in trouble.

Ashley Hand

10/21/2016 07:42:55 am

I Believe the mothers additude didn't effect the case because she wasn't asked enough questions. I dont believe enough information was gotten out of the girl because some of the jury become very vague once hitting the subject about her dad. It is hard to tell whether or not she has stollen

Jennifer Martinez

10/21/2016 07:51:46 am

Q1: In how i see it the phone must have not been hers,it could have her parents and she was just holding it for the period of time, but in conclusion to that she didn't say anything about having a phone on her and either her parents so their credibility actually means that you may not know what to believe from the defendant or what she says is true or a lie. Also by her saying that she was a victim makes it seem like she didn't have to steal but she stole anyways it didn't have to be a choice for her, she could of just walked away but she decided to stay and saying that she was the victim in this case and not the store is absolutly not understandable because it's making her seem like she doesn't care or she just didn't want to take the blame in some sort, for us to feel bad for her
Q2: The mother didn't put much input due to the fact that she and her daughter were okay that the dad wasn't part of their lives and it must have not affected her daughter by stealing just to get attention from her dad since they both seemed careless but mostly the mother. Also i believe the defendant didn't steal before because that day when she stole her plan wasn't to steal, she just wanted to go in the store and look around and she basically had enough money to pay for those items which leads me to say that it was her first time stealing.

Janae Vasquez

10/21/2016 07:52:21 am

Question 1: The defendant having possession of her cell phone although the parents claimed they had taken it away shows she and the parents have no credibility. The parents should not have stated the cellphone was confiscated if the defendant was carrying it with her. The defendant of the first case stated she felt she was the victim of the situation, this shows she was not taking responsibility for her own actions and instead blamed her friends.
Question 2: I was not present for a majority of the second case, however, the mother did seem extremely careless. The jury being too focused on the defendant's father definitely could have caused the mother to act the way she did. The defendant didn't seem like a girl who gets into trouble often, but since the mother seemed careless, she may not very strict with her daughter, so it is possible she has stolen before.

Georjean Ortega

10/21/2016 08:04:59 am

Q1: I believe the fact that the defendant had her phone reveals that not only the defendant's statement is less credible or uncedible but the parents' statements may not be credible either. Not only that, but the fact that there is no one else the defendant should be in contact since she is supposedly not talking to those friends and her parents were in the same room as the defendant, there was was no reason for the defendant to have their phone in their possession. By the defendant stating that she was the victim of the situation, shows that she just wanted to gain symphathy from the jury.
Q2: Not only could the mention of the father in the daughter's life affect the mother's attitude, but it seemed that the mother had just wanted to get the process over and done with. I believe the defendant has had previous stealing experience, because even when questioned with something small, the defendant replays their side of the story over and over in a way that sounded rehearsed as though she knew what to say if she were to get caught for a crime she committed and claimed to be impetuous.

Amber

10/21/2016 08:07:40 am

1. The fact that the defendant has her phone with her although "it was taken from her for an indefinite time" does affect her credibility but I think that the fact that she saw herself as the victim is what made things worse for her. She was trying to play the victim card because I think she thought we would be more empathetic and give her less community service hours. All in all I felt that her dad was too lenient with her.
2. I do think that the jury was too focused on her dad situation. The moms attitude didn't help the case because she was careless and the fact that the jury wasn't asking her questions don't help either. There were instances in which the defendant would reply with "I don't know" which I feel that it didn't allow us to get more depth as to why she did it and whether or not she had done it before.

Bianca Arias

10/21/2016 08:15:06 am

Q1: I think that the parents of the defendant should of said that the defendant did not have her cell phone, when in reality she did. This action does not make her a believable person and makes the jury expect that she cannot be accountable for what she says. Furthermore, the defendant made it seem as if she had done nothing wrong and made it seem as if she did not care, since she did not take the situation seriously. Q2: Yes, I did think that the jury focused more upon the father than the mother. I do not believe that the mother of the defendant was careless. Perhaps she was just too overwhelmed with the situation or not very much needed, considering that not many questions where raised regarding her thoughts. I do think that the defendant did have previous steeling experiences. In order to being as comfortable of commiting the crime as she was, implied that maybe she had done it before or perhaps just wanted to catch her parents' attention and bring them somewhat together since they are separated.

Nick Rodriguez

10/21/2016 08:28:59 am

1) When I saw the defendant with her cell phone, I remembered that herself and her parents said she didn't. So I started to think to myself, what else did they lie about? Her credibility is very low.

2)I do not think the moms attitude was affected by the subject of the dad coming up. I think that the mom is just naturally like that and was trying to hide her frustration. I don't think the defendant has ever stole before because she does really well in school.

Adrian Flores

10/21/2016 08:59:08 am

Q1: The fact that the defendant had her phone in her pocket makes her other responses unreliable. Since she lied about one aspect of the case, she can not be trusted in a sense. Also, because the defendant believed you she was the victim, she was clearly influenced by her friends and felt they were more responsible for the crime than she was.
Q2: The mother's attitude in the second case seemed reasonable, the defendant was a good student so I believe that the mom simply felt as if her daughter would be fine after the process was over. I don't think the defendant had previous stealing experience simply because she seemed remorseful for what she had done.

Yulong Zhang

10/21/2016 09:06:20 am

Q1: The defendant having her phone after her parents said they took it away and her agreeing with them makes both her parents and her not very truthful. If the parents or the defendant spoke up about how there were certain exceptions when she would be allowed to have her phone would have solved this issue. However since the defendant did have her phone and there were no exceptions stated this affected no the her and her parents credibility for lying under oath. The defendant claiming the she, herself was the victim shows that she does not realize what she did was wrong, and would possibly commit the act again. This also shows that she does not believe that it her fault that she stole.
Q2: The mothers attitude was possibly missed due to the fact that the jury mainly focused on the fact that the parents were separated and the father was not a part of her life. As well as most of the questions being directed toward the victim and not the victims mother about the father. I do believe she has stolen before because even though she has the money to pay for it she chose to steal instead. This was probably due to her mother being the only one raising her and not being able to buy her what she wants. She could also be doing this to get attention from her father who has been absent in her life for a while.

Andrea Chavez

10/21/2016 09:55:49 am

Q1: Whenever someone claims something that isn't true, their credibility can be put into question. Due to the fact that the defendant had her cell phone when she said she had it taken away not only puts into question her credibility but also her parents. In the first case, the defendant considered herself a victim. I believe that this tells us that she feels like it isn't her fault and that it was her friend's fault.
 Q2: I believe that the jury did focus more on her father, therefore taking time away from what mattered the most. I also do believe she had stealing experience because of the way she handled the situation.

Randy Valenzuela

10/21/2016 10:22:13 am

Q1: I believe the defendent and her parents aren't credible in this situation.During the case, the defendant claimed she was a victim even though she was the one who committed a crime.
Q2:The reason why the mother's attitude didn't affect the case was because the jury was more focus on what the defendant had to say, although the jury focused a lot on the defendants father, I still believe that the focus the jury had on the father wasn't a reason for the mother to have a careless attitude.I don't believe that this defendant has had any stealing experience because she seemed to have regret during the trial.

Emily Castanon

10/21/2016 10:32:50 am

I believe that by her having her cell phone on her that her credibility ment nothing since it was clear that both her parent say that she didn't have her phone and had been taken away ,but by seeing her cell phone in the pocket it was clear that they had kinda lie since they never say she can be able to have her phone for a specific amount of time her saying she was the victim was wrong because she wasn't it was the store since she stole from there products and taking money away from them or try to anyway but she knew from right to wrong not to steal that it common sense not to do it , her saying she was the victim show a lot about how she is thinking everyone should feel bad but she knows what she did and so have thought before she did what she did.
Q2:I think the jury should have ask the mother more questions then asking her about her dad when she made it clear that the situation had really nothing to do with her dad since he wasn't in her life anymore instead of paying attention to the main point and asking her mother more questions. I think she have stolen before but never got caught since how she explain what happen it seem she had experienced on stealing before.

Jasmine Hernandez

10/21/2016 11:36:25 am

Q1: The fact of the defend having her phone and also her and her parents claiming she did not have her phone changes her credibility. The defended claiming she was the victim in the situation say's a lot about her of making it seem as if she was not at fault for the situation that was caused by her.
Q2: The defendant's mother's attitude did not affect the case and was very careless about the case. I do not think it had anything to deal with the defend's dad situation that made the defense's mother careless. No I do not think the defendant has had any previous stealing experience's. I think this because defendant's mother was very careless towards the whole situation because the defendant's is a minor and it may not harshly affect her in her future life depending on her future pathway.

Ashley Herrera

10/21/2016 12:33:08 pm

Having her cell phone when she claimed it was taken away establishes her and her parent's credibility. This allows the jury to conclude that her nor her parents are very credible. The fact that she claimed she was the victim one can conclude that she wasn't well aware of her actions.
I feel as though the questioning of the father took attention off the mother's carelessness. The questioning of her father may have affected the mother's carelessness because it is a past experienced that may or may not still affect the mother. I think she may have previously stolen due to the fact of having experienced a distant relation with her father and seeks attention.

Sureya Obregon link

10/21/2016 12:44:01 pm

Q1The fact that the defendant had her phone with her questions her and her parent's credibility because they both said it was taken away; this shows that they lied to the jury and the judge, making us question if they lied about anything else. The fact that the defendant called herself the victim proves that she still hasn't accepted the fact that she did the crime.
Q2 I do think that the mother's opinion did not affect the case because they were focused on the dad and not asking the mom questions. I do think that the defendant did have previous experience stealing because of her actions.

adam martinez

10/23/2016 06:06:32 pm

For the first case the defendant had appeared to be pretty responsible she had good grades,i could tell that her parents had cared for her they seemed a bit nervous. I think that she should avoid the people who influenced her and hang around a more positive crowd.

For the second the mother had appeared a bit strict, she wasn't to concerned about her daughters situation. The defendant was very straight forward but when questions arose about her father she seemed more on edge, she genuinely didn't like answering questions about her father.As more were asked she began to get a little irratated.

Ariana Campos

10/27/2016 04:04:04 pm

I feel that by the defendant still having her phone with her, that shows no credibility. Since the parents stated that they took away her phone, and didn't know when they would give it back now makes us all look back and wonder what else the parents and the defendant might of have been lying about. It was surprising in the first place that the defendant would even have her phone in her pocket while she was in the court room, let alone her being the one carrying it. The defendant stated that she felt she was the victim during the entire situation at Sephora. However, the store was actually the victim because she took items from them, and in result, the store may have to raise their prices to make up for the things almost lost.

Katheryne Zavala

10/27/2016 09:58:32 pm

Q1: The fact that the defendant had her cell phone in her possession even after both her parents claimed that she didn't made me question the credibility of the parents. Seeing that the parents were willing to lie in court about something as small as her at home punishment caused me to question the truth behind all their statements prior. The fact the defendant considered herself the victim in the situation tells us that she blames other for her mistakes and refuses to take responsibility. I feel that this might be due to the fact that her parents over protect her.

Q2: The defendants mother's attitude did not affect the case due to the fact that she had a careless attitude and did not add any real information. I feel as though the discussion of the defendants father drew away attention form the mother. Although I do feel that the jury did focus too much on the absent father, I also feel it was good that the jury was able to hear how the defendant felt toward the divorce and her relationship with her own father. I do not think that the defendant has stolen prior to this incident but I do think stealing may have been a cry for help or attention.

Madeline Aguirre

10/27/2016 10:41:08 pm

Question 1:A person's credibility is based on their actions. By saying that she did not have her cell phone with her when she actually did, the defendant is ruining her credibility. The fact that the defendant in the first case considered herself the victim in the situation means that they are a compulsive liar who tries to get their way by manipulating the truth.

Question 2: The defendant's mother seemed very careless about the seriousness of her daughter's actions during the second case, which did not have much of an affect on the verdict of the second case. The fact that the dad was interrogated more than the mom during the second case probably caused this carelessness. I think that the defendant only stole this one time, in order to get attention from her dad, but has never stolen anything else before. I believe that the defendant stole it for attention and had no bad intentions based on the fact that she was openly honest.

Melissa Aguirre

10/27/2016 10:48:47 pm

Q#1-A person should always be responsible for their actions or else they cannot be trusted. Since neither the defendant or her parents were taking responsibility for the action of the defendant having her cell phone with her, then the defendant cannot be trusted. Therefore, the defendant does not have a good credibility. The fact that the defendant in the first case considered herself the victim in the situation says that she is a selfish, careless person who only cares about herself.

Q#2-The defendant's mother's attitude did not affect case, because she seemed very careless. Therefore, she did not provide that much information. Since the jury and the rest of the court officials could not get much information from the mom of the defendant, then they decided to question the defendant's dad. I think that the defendant only stole this one time to get attention, because she seemed like a good girl who just needs a little bit of positive guidance in her life.

Jessica Zapien

10/29/2016 09:09:56 pm

1. The defendant not mentioning that pretty crucial detail made her seem much less trustworthy definitely. The fact that her parents made no mention of it as well also makes one wonder what else they lied about. She obviously had a victim complex as if she were the one wronged by her friends when it was first and foremost her decision to commit a crime. This very notion was quite ridiculous and showed that she did not feel very responsible of her actions.
2. The defendant's mother's seemingly careless attitude made me believe that the defendant has gotten into trouble before, though perhaps not to this extent. I don't really think she had stolen before though.

Marco Gamez Per.5

11/4/2016 01:23:12 pm

1st. I believe that she lied the whole time and then lied right infront of our faces because she said well her parents said that they took her phone "away" that they took her phone completely and she won't get it for a while and then as she was walking one of teen member seen her with her phone in her back pocket. The jury was all up on her about her father I really feel that we shouldn't get too personal about her father like I get we should get answers but still.
2nd And I believed her mother didn't have any emotion in her about her daughter what she did I belives that she has done it before and that it's like nothing new. Her father was a big impact in her because the jury was up on her

Fransisco Aguilar per.5

11/4/2016 01:24:54 pm

The fact that she had her cell phone when her parents said she didnt shows that they were lying about her punishement still going on and also when the defendant said she was the victim shows that she feels like its not her fault when it clearly is. The mother of the defendant in the second case showed no emotion which played no role in the case because it seems like she just wanted to get the case over with. No i do not think it has to do anything with being focused on the dad and no i do not think shes had a previous stealing expierence.

Steven Rubalcava P.5

11/4/2016 01:27:12 pm

Q1- The girl should have been completely honest and told the jury that her phone got tooken away but she had it on hand, she knows what she did wrong by the store by stealing makeup but she is so full of herself thinking that she can get away with a light sentence because shes a "good student"

Q2- I think that the jury felt sorry for the girls loss and took ot easy on the questions after, the moms careless attitude upset me maybe she didn't feel like she had to take the case seriously because we are students. The moms careless attitude reflects how lightly the defendant was probably punished at home.

Mark p5

11/4/2016 01:28:13 pm

Q1: She made a claim that her parents took her phone and punished her but during the case she had the phone. So technically her parents and herself lied about the phone being there. She thought she was the victim but she really isn't because we the people are the victims because the people have to pay the higher price of makeup afterwards.
Q2: The mothers attitude didn't change nothing because she telling the full truth. I agree. They were a little to focus on him because he wasn't really there for her and that could've been a way of her stealing the makeup. She didn't look like the type to steal cause she looks like an innocent young lady

Maryline Carchipulla (period 5)

11/4/2016 01:28:54 pm

Q1:The fact that the defendant had her cell phone with her the entire time doesn't take away her credibility because sometimes a parent let's you use their phone for certain things even when you're with them. She might have he'd her phone but we don't really know for a fact that it was connected or disconnected. The fact she considered herself the victim shows that she really wasn't fully aware of what she did and if she was she might not have felt so bad.
Q2: I agree that she seemed careless from time to time. I think that it didn't affect her so much because her daughter seemed careless as well. Maybe the fact that the Jury was only focusing on her dad made the mom not answer or ask questions or be involved as much. I think the defendant did have previous stealing experience because she seemed so careless about the whole situition as if what she stole was something else to add to what she's stolen and did not really care that she got caught.

Abel Duran Period 5

11/4/2016 01:29:09 pm

Q1:The defendant having the cell phone in her possession made her credibility go down because she lied to the court room about having the cell phone after the fact her parents explained that she was grounded and was disconnected from her cell phone. Also when the defendant considered herself the vitcim in the first case it made me believe she was trying to say anything that came to her mind and didn't really consider her actions seriously.
Q2: I feel like the mother's attitude did affect the case because she wanted to protray her as the perfect daughter who has a 4.0 gpa and is good at home but showed it in a way that seem careless. I do not believe the defendant had any pervious stealing experience I feel like she might have done that in spite of the relationship between her parents being broken.

Michael Millan p.5

11/4/2016 01:29:30 pm

Q:1 It takes away a lot of her credibility due to the fact that her and her parents stated that they had taken her phone away indefinitely which makes no sense for her to have it with her then. She is a little selfish for stating herself as the victim and a little ignorant.
Q:2 It did not affect it as much due to the fact that she was not sworn under any oath and she may have been just frustrated with her daughter. I disagree with that due to the face she had the same tone in voice throughout. Yes once the defendant brought up her father everyone's appoarch changed. I think there is previous cases where she has stolen due to the fact that she had a wise thought of what she had done.

JACOB GARCIA

11/4/2016 01:30:25 pm

Q#1 it showed that her credibility was negative baca use she told us and the jury she got her phone taken way. By her saying that she's the victim shows us that she hasn't learned that it's her fault nobody forced her to steal.

Q#2 the defendants mothers attitude didn't affect the case because we are focused on the child and she was telling the truth. I disagree that she that she appeared careless. No and no I don't think she had a history of stealing

Sabrina p. 5

11/4/2016 01:30:51 pm

Q1: The defendant having her phone in her pocket the day of court made me think if her and her parents really took her punishment serious . I think the defendant was very confused about considering herself as the victim in the situation.
Q2: The defendants mother's attitude not affect the case because I thought she was telling the truth . I didn't really like both the mother's and the defendants attitude through out the whole case. I do think the defendant have stolen before this incident.

Robert Covarrubias Period 5

11/4/2016 01:30:57 pm

Q1: The fact that she said she had her phone when earlier she and her parents said she didn't have it proves that she was not telling the truth to look good. Since she said that she was the victim it tells me that she believes she did nothing wrong.

Q2: The mother's attitude did not affect the case because she was just telling the truth and I think the jury was a little focused on the dad but not too much to affect the case.

Serena Montelongo p.5

11/4/2016 01:32:12 pm

Q1. By the defendant having her phone when her parents claimed that they took it away made her credibility mean nothing. With the defendant considering herself as the the victim, she felt as if she was wronged by her friends. She was only blaming others for her wrong doing.

Q2. The defendants mother's attitude didn't affect the case because she seemed to be careless about the situation. I don't believe the defendant had previous stealing experience. It didn't seem like the mother would give harsh punishments.

Angel p.5

11/4/2016 01:33:06 pm

1)The fact that the defendant had her phone and her parents claimed she didn't affected the credibility dramatically. The jury was in sure as to what elements of the testimony was true. She also considered herself the victim of the situation which may describe the defendant as a victim of peer pressure or simply spoiled.
2) The defendants mother's attitude did not affect the case due to her strict standards in substituting the father. The jury may have been focused on the absence of the father which caused the mother to lose intentions of being in the court from time to time. The defendant may have been involved in stealing before due to the absence of her father.

Valerie Calvillo , period 5

11/4/2016 01:33:06 pm

Q1: The fact that the defendant had her cellphone with her when both her and her parents claimed she didn't does affect her credibility because she lied which means she gets charged with felony which is even bigger. I think she should've got more hours , she said she stopped at a corner and was thinking of putting the bag down but yet she still passed the door she had a choice!

Q2: The moms attitude did not affect the case because it seemed that she wanted the court over. Yes she didn't not care because they were asking to much about the , something probably happened that she doesn't want to explain, and was being bothered by it.

Matthew Rivera p.5

11/4/2016 01:33:33 pm

1) I think since the defendant had her phone when both her parents stated she didn't have it, destroys her credibility even though it's a small thing, it makes it seem like she's willing to lie on bigger topics. Also her having the belief that she was the victim shows she shows she doesn't have a right mind.

2) I think the mother's attitude did not affect the case because nobody really focused on attitude but rather they focus on if she's speaking truth or not. Also I don't believe it was caused by the jury focusing on the dad but it could be if she had some type of anger toward the father. I think she did have some experience stealing because she seemed to have known what she was doing.

Sebastian Estrada period 5

11/4/2016 01:33:53 pm

1. The minor was blaming her friend for stealing the items because she was trying to look for her friends. She should've called them and ask where they were at. She also said she was the victim but we know that the victim is the consumer because the store would higher the prices in their store.
2. The minor was responding in an attitude because she did not care. I think she stole the make up, to get attention from her mom because she said she is rarely there at home and also because of her dad that had left her.

Antonio De La Cruz

11/4/2016 01:33:54 pm

Question 1: I think that when we discovered that the girl had her phone on her when her parents said they had punished her and took it away it affected the way the jury and the audience thought about her because her parents weren't actually punishing her and they were lying. When the girl said that she was the victim that said that she felt like the victim and it wasn't her fault

Question 2: The mothers attitude did not affect the case because she looked a little careless. I agree that the mother was careless because her facial expressions and her responses said it all. I don't necessarily think it had to do with her dad because in the whole case she had a rude attitude. I think she never stole because she had good grades and when they asked her mom if she's stolen before the mom said no.

Santiago Mata p.5

11/4/2016 01:34:09 pm

Yes it has affected her credibility because this goes to show that the parents were lying about her punishment and we're going easy on her. When she said that she was the victim because of peer pressure shows that she is yet to understand the fact that she wasn't the victim it was the consumer buying the products. She needs to further understand what she has done was wrong.

The mother's attitude did affect the case because she was unhappy at the fact that she was getting questions asked by students. Yes I agree that she was careless because of how the questions were being asked to her and her daughter. No I don't think it was because the questions were asked about the dad it was just because she was being questioned by students and did want to be there because she had to take the day off of work. I think that she did have experience stealing because of the way she was acting so I feel like she had experience stealing before

Sebastian Estrada period 5

11/4/2016 01:34:54 pm

Anthony Guzman

11/4/2016 01:35:52 pm

Q1: I believe the fact that the defendant had her cell phone with her when both her and her parents claimed they took it away as a punishment, the fact that her and her parents lied to the jury and the judge lost any credibility she had and making us wonder if possibly any other statements made my her and her parents were also a lie. The fact that she claimed she was the victim of her own crime shows that she won't take responsibility for her own actions and tried to make us all believe she was a victim of peer pressure so the jury wouldn't be so hard on her.
Q2: I believe the mother came to be bothered by the fact that the jury kept bringing up the father and I think the mother had a lot of anger towards the father for leaving them and the more the father was brought up and talked about the mothers attitude got worse. And I think this was the first time the defendant ever stole anything.

Fernando Pantoja

11/4/2016 01:37:18 pm

Question 1. The fact that the girl had her cell phone when her parents said that she wasn't suppose to is that the defendant is a liar. The girl from the first case considerd herself the victim because she is selfish and failed to realized that she was hurting other people than herself

Question 2. The mothers attitude did not affect the case because the jury was more focus on the dad than the mom.the mom didn't care about what was happening. I think it did had to do focusing on her dad. I belive this was the first time that she stole

Katherine Marroquin p.6

11/4/2016 02:21:22 pm

Q:1 Her having her phone when both her and her parents said she didn't affects her credibility because it shows dishonesty. Having credibility is what you say is 100% the truth and you do not lie about it. In this case she lied about her phone which is something so small so who knows what else she may have lied about. When the defendant called herself the victim shows that she does not realize what she did wrong. She feels bad for herself not for the real victims in this case. This makes her look selfish.

Omar Torres p.6

11/4/2016 02:21:57 pm

Q1: The fact that the jury caught her phone when her parents claimed she didn't have one is a crucial detail when determining her sentence. It definitely affected her credibility by making her seem as irresponsible and cannot be trusted. It was made worse by her stating she was the victim which only shows that she only cares for herself and not the affects of her actions.
Q2: The matter in which the mother answered the question made it seem as though this was nothing new and the defendant might have gotten in trouble in the past but not in the sense of stealing. The stealing could've been just for attention however since the jury was primarily focused on the missing mother figure, I believe that's what caused the mother to have her attention drawn away.

Leanne Payan, per. 6

11/4/2016 02:22:03 pm

#1. The defendant having her cell phone ruined her credibility, even though it was her parent who said if, it still affects the defendant in a negative way. When said believed she was the victim, shows that she still doesn't understand that her actions were wrong. She tries saying that since her friends left her she was the victim, when it was her who committed the action.
#2. The defendants mothers attitude necessarily didn't have an affect because I believe she was letting her daughter answer the questions. Since the defendant did state that her father was not in the picture, the jury began to ask questions based on the fact that the father wasn't in the picture. By asking questions based on the father, it was a problem that could have led to the action comitted. I don't believe she had stealing experience before this case, she seemed to be truthful and was nervous about the crime and action she had committed.

Amy Lopez

11/4/2016 02:22:15 pm

The fact that her parents said that she wasn't allowed to have her phone and she did implied that the parents weren't actually punishing her at home. Which is probably why she saw her self as the victim because she wasn't been put at a position that she she's not the victim so she didn't really process that she was not a victim that she the offender and they store and the rest of the people in the community are the real victims

Isaiah p.6

11/4/2016 02:22:34 pm

It's a bad thing that she had her phone because her parents said that they took away her phone. She ain't the victim because no one pointed a gun to her and said she had to steal. It seem like the mother didn't really care about it. I agree that it seem like she didn't care. I don't think it was the jury because they were just asking questions about the dad. I don't really think so, because she said that it was her first time doing it.

Daniela6

11/4/2016 02:23:44 pm

The fact that the defendant had her cell phone affected her credibility because she and her parents could have been lying about anything else. It makes it more difficult to trust what she claims. Because the defendant considered herself the victim it goes to show that she doesn't see what she did as wrong. She focused more on herself because she was the one who was "abondoned" by her friends. She didn't think about what she had done

Isaac Briseno

11/4/2016 02:24:02 pm

Q1:The defendant having her phone after saying that she had gotten it taken away was a form of lying and I think that looking at her consequences it might have been taken into consideration.

Q2: I agree that her jury was focused on the dad more than the mother and she did seem a little bit careless because she and the father answered more to get their daughter out of trouble rather than punish her.

Erik Villanueva per.6

11/4/2016 02:24:24 pm

Q1. the defendant having her cellphone denied her all credibility because she can no longer be trusted with the truth, she is clearly lying or not telling the entire truth when she says that her parents took her phone. it destroys all trust the jury has with the parents as well, because the parents are lying to protect the daughter and therefore trying to get her lighter sentence. when the girl says she herslef is the victim this says to me that she didn't learn anything, that stealing was no problem to her. It tells me that she was okay with stealing, just not okay getting caught, this proves that she may very well continue stealing after her probation.
Q2. the mothers attitude doesn't affect the case in a literal sense where we analyze facts, but does affect the case on an abstract level taking in account of why they may have stolen. I agree the mother did seem careless from time to time as is if mentally saying that her kid was the one in trouble not her, she seemed like she didn't want to be there at all. I don't think it has anything to do with the jury being on her dad, because the divorce happened a year before, surely she has had a lot of time to get over it. I do believe she had previous experience stealing, but not enough experience because if she had enough experience she would not have chosen jcpenny and would have most likely gotten away with it.

Alejandra Lopez per. 6

11/4/2016 02:24:48 pm

Q1: I think that the defendant having her phone with her after claiming that it was take away proves that she was not trustworthy. Although some people were arguing that she had her phone because of this specific event, it still made no sense to me. If she had. It's parents with her at the time, why would she need to have her phone with her? Also, claiming that she was the victim of the crime clearly displayed that she did not understand how harmful her actions were and is still irresponsible.
Q2: The actions of the defendant's mother made it seem like the defendant was not new to getting in trouble, but not as far as getting arrested for it. I personally do not think she had stolen before this incident because of her actions in court and her responses to the jury.

Eileen Fonseca Period 6

11/4/2016 02:24:49 pm

The fact that the defendant had possession of her phone when both her and her parents claimed that she was prohibited from it affects her credibility because it also means that she or her parents could have said other lies to allow the jury to perceive her the way she wanted. The defendant in the first case views herself as the victim of the action she committed, and this says that she doesn't fully grasp the consequences what she did. The defendant's mother's attitude doesn't affect the case because she isn't the defendant. I agree, the mother did appear to be careless from time to time. This could be because the jury focused questions toward the father than to her. I believe that the defendant did have previous experience in stealing, and I believe this due to her not seeing the stealing as a bad thing than of just getting caught.

Katherine Marroquin p.6

11/4/2016 02:25:00 pm

Q:2 I disagree that the mother was being careless because she didn't know English , and because she may have been disappointed what her daughter had done. The judge was more focused on the father because he was more in for protecting his daughter . I don't believe that the defendant had previous stealing experiences because she seemed hurt and started crying when asked how her parents felt about it .

Danielle period 6

11/4/2016 02:25:20 pm

The fact that the defendant had her cell phone with her when he parents claimed they had taken it away affects her credibility because that shows us that she can't be trusted. If her phone was taken away but was given back to her she could've mentioned it which would have let us know. The defendant also considered herself a victim which shows us that she believes what she did wasn't her fault because she was peered pressured and because her friends left her.I don't think she fully understand the fact the store was the actual victim because they have Ronnie raise the prices for these items.

Jimena Garcia Per.6

11/4/2016 02:26:56 pm

1. The fact that she didn't mentioned hat she had her phone with her and that the people in the court were the ones who noticed made her seem less trustworthy, also the fact that she considered herself the victim of the situation proved that she didn't feel responsible for what she did.
2. The way the mother was acting made it seemed like what her daughter did was not serious and made me think that she had probably done it before.

Andy Recinos

11/4/2016 02:28:13 pm

It makes her look like a lair and that she didn't really care about the case. She wasn't a victim at all it shows that she doesn't really care for anybody but herself. It didn't affect the case because she was just mad and upset

Philip Martinez period 6

11/4/2016 02:28:28 pm

Q1: I believe that her having her phone when both parents stated that she didn't have it affects her credibility because it makes it seem that she can't be trusted at all and that she has a habit of lying. When the defendant considered herself the victim it made me think that she cared only about her well being and that she wanted everybody in the court to feel bad for her and change our perspective on her.
Q2: I agree that the mom seemed careless from time to time which did not affect the case because she just seemed mad and disappointed in her daughter for stealing.i believe that the questions about her father did affect her in a way, however she wasn't able to do or say anything about it. I believe she has had previous stealing experiences because she had that vibe with her that showed me that she has stolen but never been caught before .

Brianna Period 6

11/4/2016 02:28:38 pm

1. I don't believe it affects the defendants credibility since her parents are the ones who claimed she didn't have access to her phone anymore. The defendant considering herself the victim shows that she was focused more on herself being victimized opposed to the crime that she had committed.

2.The mothers attitude affected the case because she seemed distant, she appeared careless because her facial expressions seemed as though she didn't want to be there. I do feel like she may have stolen before because she seemed that she was sorry for getting caught not for stealing

Michael Monge per.6

11/4/2016 02:28:52 pm

Q1: The fact that she had her phone with her even though the parents and her claimed they took it away and they didn't make a statement to say that she had it with her at the moment because of the situation takes away her credibility because it shows that she was not afraid to lie even under oath. Saying she was the victim because her friends ditched her says that she believes that she did nothing wrong and doesn't feel responsible for the situation.
Q2: The mothers careless reaction could just be because she didn't get focused on so she was able to calm down or the defendant could have been in trouble before. Since he mother was this careless it could show that the defendant has probably stolen before this.

Kaeliana Vasquez pd.6

11/4/2016 02:29:25 pm

Q1 It effected her credibility because she claimed that was a form of punishment for her and the fact that she had it questioned if she really did get punished and why she lied. Lieing about something as small as that, can really question if she lied about anything else. Also the fact that she stated she was the victim made a turn in the case in which she personally felt it was not her fault at all and she shouldn't have been the one to get in trouble even if she had done those actions.

Q2 A possible reason for it affecting the case was the fact that the jury had more of its attention towards the defendant and the fact that the mom seemed to be relaxed is questionable because her daughter was getting in trouble for theft and it seemed like we were wasting the mothers time with her not reacting to anything. Though the father was not in her life, you would think the mother would be more concerned and sticking up for her child because of them being "close". I do believe she had stolen before because she seemed to have taken items casually in thinking she most likely wasn't going to get caught. She seems like a good person but probably just needs a good influence of people to have around her.

Daniela6

11/4/2016 02:29:31 pm

2. The defendant mothers attitude did not affect the case because she did not try to defend her daughter. She did seem careless but it was because her daughter should have known better and her daughter was the one who committed the crime. It seemed as though the daughter had been in trouble before and the mother was not going to defend her. I believe the defendant might have had a previous stealing experience because she did not seem so shocked about being caught. She didn't have a real excuse about why she stole, it was just her decision to do so.

Milly p.6

11/4/2016 02:29:46 pm

1.I think it affects more the parents credibility and this reflects on the defendants behavior. If her parents enable her malicious behavior then this will only backfire and cause her to do more things like the one we heard during the hearing. The fact that she thought she was the victim leaves me thinking she has no idea what morals are.
2. The defendants mothers attitude didn't affect the case because she didn't really speak much it was more focused on the defendant. The mother did seem careless with her facial expressions and she didn't get a harsh punishment.I think the mom was just over the whole act and just wanted to get through the case. Yes because she had an opportunity to sneak out plenty of times because her mom wasn't home and she didn't really show remorse.

Viviana Reyna

11/4/2016 02:29:56 pm

Q1: The fact that the defendant had her cell phone with her when both her and her parents claimed she didn't affected her credibility because it proved she couldn't be trusted, therefore we needed to be cautious of anything she said because she could've been lying. In the first case she considered herself the victim and this says that she really is not aware of the crime she committed.
Q2: The defendant's mother's attitude did not affect the case because the main focus was not on her. I agree she seemed careless because of her emotions and her responses. It is a possibility that this is because the jury was focused on the dad. There is a chance the defendant had previous stealing experiences because of her responses but then again you could tell how nervous she was.

Juan

11/4/2016 02:30:02 pm

Q1: It seems that they were not as serious about her punishment as they have given her the opportunity to have her phone back. When she considered herself a victim, it seemed as she felt like she did nothing wrong, that the store had the fault, when she is the one who agreed to steal. So it all comes down to her, she left with the bag of stolen items.

Q2: The mother's attitude did look careless but when she replied it didn't seem like she was careless, as every answer she gave did focus on the good of her daughter. No I feel like it did not have to do with the jury focusing too much on the defendant's father, but i feel like it did strike a point in the defendant's emotional state. I believe the defendant did not have previous stealing experience because her story seemed credible and she did feel very bad and guilty about what she had done.

Kaitlyn (Period 6)

11/4/2016 02:30:24 pm

Q1) The fact that the first defendant had her phone when her parents claimed she didn't, doesn't necessarily affect her credibility. I believe it affected her parents. Her father mostly, would make sure his daughter spoke carefully and would sometimes answer for her. Besides, they're the adults and said that she wasn't allowed access to her phone, however she had possession of it during court. When the defendant said she was the victim in the first case shows she feels that she wasn't responsible. She would blame her friends for peer pressuring her and that she went in the corner and had thoughts. Therefore it shows that she thought of stealing.
Q2) The defendant's mother did affect the case. She had an attitude that seem like she did not want to be there. Since the jury was focusing the absence of the father and the relationship between the defendant and him, the mother seemed as she didn't have to be there. I believe she did have previous stealing experiences because she only felt sorry for when she got caught.

Leonardo Avina period 6

11/4/2016 02:31:15 pm

1. The fact that the defendant did have her phone with her makes the jury and the audience believe that she had lied in that circumstance which also brings up the question of what else did she not tell the truth about. When she said she was the victim, that says that she felt scared in the situation she was in and does not really understand the question being asked.

2. The defendant's mother's attitude did not affect the case because it seemed that the mother had been in a situation like this before and seemed comfortable in answering the questions being asked. I do not believe she was careless but I believe she was not expressing herself to the point where she was defending her daughter to the best extent. Being asked questions to her and her daughter about the defendant's father made the mother seemed a little irritated in her responses. I do believe that the defendant did have stealing experience before but either that the defendant was successful in stealing or had not stole something to lead to a situation as big as going to teen court.

Amy Lopez

11/4/2016 02:32:17 pm

2. The mothers attitude didn't affect the case as much because she was there because she had to go. She did appear to be careless throughout the whole time and the reason why the jury focused on her father was that maybe she was acting out because her father wasn't there and he wasn't the best role model for her. I don't really thinking she had a pervious stealing experience

Jesse Bruyneel Period:6

11/4/2016 02:33:10 pm

1.The fact that the defendant had her phone told us she is not trustworthy cause she stole items and still has her phone 📱. Once I saw her phone i knew there were planing to lie about what ever question theu were going to get asked. She stated that she was the victim because her friends put items in her bag and left her. But on camera it looked like she put most of the items in her bag and she even said she went to a corner and was going to drop the bag and leave but she saw her friends and ran out the door. So she did it her friends didn't threaten her or assault her so there fore she did the crime.
2. It didn't affect anything because it looked like she did not care. I agree she was careless. Yes there too focused on the dad then the mom. I think she stole this one time for attention

Patty Herrera per. 6

11/4/2016 02:33:41 pm

1. The fact that the defendant had her cell phone when her parents had said they took it away made me question their credibility. This affects her credibility because if she lies about this, she can be lying about other things as well. Also the defendant says she was the victim, this shows how irresponsible she is and that she can't take responsibility for her actions.
2. The defendants mothers attitude didn't affect the case because she was very careless. I agree she appeared careless from time to time. I think it has to be about the jury being focused on her dad because the father wasn't part of her life. I don't believe she has stolen before but just because she was trying to get attention from her father.

Maricruz Gamero per 6

11/4/2016 02:35:15 pm

It affected her credibility because she lied under oath. Also it makes her look bad since she did. Even the parents said she didnt have her phone and was punished from it. Made her look like a lier. What it says about her is that she is untrustworthy and blames others for her actions for her saying she's the victim.
2. The mother seemed like she didn't care. It looked like she had more trouble at home and the mother seemed careless. I agree that she didn't care from time to time. Not really because I think the jury was just trying to get answers from her. I don't think she has ever stolen.

Danielle Period 6

11/4/2016 02:35:37 pm

Q1: the fact that the defendant had her cell phone with her when her parents claimed they had taken it away affects her credibility because that shows us the jury that she can't be trusted. If her phone was indeed taken away but was given back to her she could have mentioned it which would have let us know. The defendant also considered herself a victim which shows us that she believes what she did wasn't her fault because she was peer pressure also because her friends had left her. I don't think she fully understands the fact that the store was the actual victim because they have to raise the prices for these items.
Q2: I believe the mothers attitude did not affect the case because she did seem careless of what was going on and our focus was on the daughter not the mother. Yes I do agree she seemed careless from time to time. No I don't believe it was because we had asked questions on the dad. I also did believe that the defendant had previously stole she also seemed careless sometimes and knew what and what not to say because maybe she had done this before and never got seriously in trouble.

Richard Vargas

11/4/2016 02:46:59 pm

The fact that she had her cellphone even when her father claimed she absolutely did not have one on her, brings up more questions as to what the actual punishments were for the minor. Possible reasons could be that she is not supposed to have a phone with her unless in certain situations, although the parents never stated this, which only leaves holes in their statements. Another possible reason may have been that the parents wanted the people of the court to think she was punished in a way to make her learn her lesson, or to make the daughter somewhat look good on her defense. As for her thinking she is the victim of the crime somewhat makes me think she does not understand the whole process of what she's done. She has stolen from a store and yet she feels that peer pressure was more of the crime or motivation for stealing. I am also left with the feeling that she did not understand the question or meaning of "victim." Possibly, she was to nervous to fully think straight and blinded by the fact that she could be in serious trouble and yet leaves her not learning anything from this or the crime she had committed because her mindset was focused on feeling sorry for herself.
As for the second case of the girl stealing, from what I can remeber, the mother only seemed to be really upset. I feel that the mother was the type of person that she will absolutely not take any blame, if she took no part in an act. She was to let her daughter absolutely take the blame and ensure that her daughter learns her lesson. As for the father situation, it could have possibly been due to her father not being in the picture that led her mother to act this way. Maybe the mother feels no emotion towards the father when mentioned because of him leaving. Or maybe her daughter has gone into trouble before and the mother is unsure of when she will truly learn her lesson. I do not believe that the daughter has stolen before, maybe gotten in troubl, but not in this type of situation.

Kiara Acosta De La Rosa P.5

11/7/2016 05:37:54 pm

1. The fact that she had her cellphone and the parents said they took it away makes them look like they were not as strict as they were suppose to be with her because she stole and this could of affect her future. Then the fact she said she was the victim makes her look like she was the one getting stole by when the victim was really the store she jacked from.
2. The mothers attitude does not affect the case because she did not care much she seemed more embarassed the fact that she was there. I agree she seem careless time to time because she did not want to be there. I do not think it does have to do something with the jury being focused on her dad because perhaps she was wanting attention from him. I think she has before stolen from other places because she does seem to be telling the truth at times she and her mother does not seem to have any connection within each other so i am guessing she stole before because of lack of attention from the parents.

Samantha Leggis

11/9/2016 12:58:57 pm

1) The defendant having her phone in her back pocket lowered her credibility because she specifically stated her parents took her phone away. The defendant claiming she was the victim of the situation insinuates she does not have morality.
2) I think maybe the mother seemed "careless" is because it's been about a month since the incident occurred so she has had time to process the situation and her feelings and maybe she also appeared careless because the case was shifted from the daughter and the mother to the daughter and the father. I do not believe she has stolen before because she seemed truthful, but scared.

Derick Villafuerte

11/23/2016 11:54:01 am

1.Since the defendant didn't state that in the beginning proves that she is lying. This shows that that that they could not be trusted and concludes the fact that she is not well aware of her actions
2. It didn't really affect the case because she wasn't really involved in this case. The dad might not have had an impact on this because he wasn't there in the defandants and ex-wife lives. She might have had a previous stealing experience because the parents didn't seem surprised when they heard about this case

Alexis-Jenessa Viramontes

12/2/2016 12:36:47 pm

Q1: Her having her cell phone when her parent's claimed she didn't makes her look bad because if she lied about that who knows what else she was lying about. When she made herself seem like the victim it made it seem like she wasn't take responsibility for what she had did. Since she was in trouble she should have owned up to her mistakes even if she didn't want to.
Q2: Her mother wasn't really saying anything so it didn't really affect the case. I don't think the jury was too focused on her dad; maybe they were focused on her dad a little bit. I do think that she had previous stealing experiences because the way that she was telling the story made it seem like she had planned it out and the way she detailed it.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

October 2016

Leave a Reply.

Categories