1. I do believe the defendant was innocent because when he was asked different questions he did not really know what he was saying because at first he said he stole is skateboard back which is technically not a crime if you steal something that was already yours.
2. The behaviors of the mother were affecting the case because she clearly recalled the important details like when her son was putting the black tape on his new skateboard. The mother clearly knew everything but what I found suspicious was how the mother knew the black tape but could not recall the year or months she transferred her son.
Q1 :I believe that the defendant was innocent because the one key piece of evidence was never seen by anyone. Also the reason for which they believed it was him was based upon hair and a backpack, which he had a great argument for, many people have the same style of both hair and backpack.
Q2: The mother took a defensive stance toward the questions that where being asked. Her behavior had a negative affect because it seemed that she was trying to cover for her son.
1) I believe that the defendant was guilty because the person who identified him would not just say it was him with the risk of losing their job.
2) The mother was affecting the case by answering for her son and for being authoritative over her son who sometimes had no clue when things started or happened.
1. I believe the defendant was innocent because he seemed confused when the jury asked questions and there was no actual prooof to prove otherwise.
2. The mother was defending her son too much which made it look bad, as if he wasn’t innocent.
1) Although there was lack of evidence, some of the defandant’s answers, like explaing how there are lots of people at his school who have similiar haircuts and backpacks, led me to believe he is not innocent.
2) Like most parents, her behavior was defensive for her child. Although she gave the key factor of seeing her son taping his new skateboard, which worked in his favor, the way she tried to answer the questions directed to the defendant was unnecessary and, in a way, irrelevant, since he is the one under oath not her. Her answers were helpful but gave to much than was needed.
Question 1: I think the defendant was innocent, but either way, there wasn't enough proof that he was or wasnt guilty.
Question 2: The mother's responses made him look innocent but the fact that she wasn't sworn in affected how the jury used the information.
Q1: I initially believed that the defendant was guilty, but after hearing his mother's and his side of the story, I felt that he was inncocent. Although he sounded underprepared, His story added up and made logical sense along with his mother's. Not to mention that there is no physical evidence to prove he was the one who committed the crime he was accused of.
Q2: The mother definitely made an impact upon the case and I was surprised that she wasn't sworn under oath. At times it felt like the mother was a bit negligent of her son, with her forgetting the date her son was expelled and transferred to Whittier. There was do doubt that she was concerned about the case and the accusations made about her son. At times it felt she was attempting to cover for her son and became really defensive, but it was expected of her as a mother. Her story felt genuine and it checked out with her son's.
It is hard to determine wether the defendant could have been innocent or not due to the lack of evidence. However, it can be safer to say he was not guilty since he did not even know certain details of the incident that was in the verdict. This makes me lean more towards the defendant being innocent if he was in fact telling the truth. The mother was not a great contributor to the case. She was overly defensive and would at times, answer when the question was not directed towards her.
A1: In this case there was not enough evidence and information that the defendant stole his old skateboard back, there were only assumptions therefore we could not plead the defendant guilty.
A2: The mother was behaving in a defensive way and was answering in such a way as if her child was innocent of the "crime", she seemed to be over protective because when it was her child's turn to answer the question she would interrupt, her behavior was inappropriate and it affected the defendants turn to speak.
The defendant did seem guilty in the begging but by the middle of the session it changed. Well because he wasn't really doling much of the talking; it was more his mother. Not until his mother stated on how she witnessed her son put tape on his new skateboard. Concluding the defendant more voulnerable that it wasn't him. The case was affected by the mother because it portrayed as if she was trying to take take over the talking instead of letting her son fight for his innocent. If the mother wouldn't stated about the witnessed she encountered the case would probably of ended ok a different note.
I believe the defendant was innocent because he was seemingly oblivious to the charges he was faced with as well as a good alibi to how he had a similar board to the one that was stolen. The behavior of the mother was suspicious as she was not sworn in and could have lied the entire trial. The mother was very active and seemed to prevent the defendant from answering questions and was giving too much information to the extent that she was making her son seem guilty. The mother's answer to how she was not able to recall her sons transfer but could clearly remember him applying grip tape to a board seemed like a lie. If there was evidence to prove the defendant guilty, the mothers comments would definitely help influence to jury into making the decision.
Q1: I believe the defendant was innocent because he didn't know a lot about the charges against him and he already had a new skateboard. It wouldn't make sense for the defendant to break in and steal his own skateboard after he already got a new one.
Q2: I believe the behavior and responses of the mother made the defendant appear more guilty because she wasn't very prepared and answered many of the defendant's question for him. It made it seem like she was covering for him.
1.) I think the defendant was innocent because the answers he provided seem reasonable with the evidence and information that was provided. His response to the questions asked tied together with other information and made sense.
2.) The behavior and the answers of the mother affected the case because since she kept answering for him and it made him feel suspicious. Since his mother kept interrupting and answering the questions for him it also made it seem like he was not prepared.
1. Yes, I believe the defendent was innocent because there wasn't evidence that said otherwise. Nothing he said ever changed my mind to believe he had any involvement in the crime.
2. She affected the case very much. She was answering for her son and feeling in gaps that he couldn't. She made it very hard to talk to the boy because whenever question were asked, she would answer for him. It wasn't really his story, it was more hers.
Q1: I believe the defendant was innocent because he did not seem very aware of the situation. If he had been involved with the crime, the defendant would have acted much more guilty. Also, his mother claimed that he was innocent, and she used her memory as evidence to support her statement. The only evidence presented was in favor of the minor, therefore, there was no way we could have found him guilty.
Q2: At first, the mother was a little too suspicious. She was answering questions for her son, and it began to lead me to believe that she was creating a story for him. Although, when he began to tell his side, and it matched with the mother's, we knew that he was innocent. The mother also claimed that she had memories of her son that would prove his innocence. Her actions changed the case because it lead to his innocence being solidified. It was her claims that convinced the jury that he hadn't committed a crime.
Q1: I believe the defendant was not guilty. He did not show the usual traits people show when they are guilty. He was completely unaware of the situation and had no problem answering the questions he was asked. The lack of evidence and no real way of connecting him to the crime is what really made him seem innocent.
Q2: The mother seemed to be semi-interested in the well-being of her child. She was unable to recall important times in her son's transfer from one school to another. However, she states she remembers seeing him put tape on his skateboard when he bought it. This made me believe that she was either withholding information or exaggerating the facts. Her behavior is what made me believe there is a possibility he was guilty. However, some of my fellow classmates have told me they saw it completely differently. They said it was the mother and her details that made them believe he was innocent. Overall, the lack of evidence is what really led to the defendant leaving as not guilty. The mother could not have done much to change the outcome. The only things that could have changed the outcome would be either a confession or the video of the robbery.
1. I believe the defendant was innocent because we lacked evidence to prove he was the one that broke in and stole the items. Also, when he was asked if he knew what he was being charged for, he didn't really know what were his charges which made it seem like he had no clue there had been an incident at California High School. Finally, the explanation he gave about him buying a new skateboard and putting the same grip tape as the one that had been taken away from him, and stolen the day of the incident, was very convincing to prove he was not the person that broke into Cal High and stole the skateboards.
2. I think the mother should have been separated from the son because she was being a bit protective and she was answering for the kid. This seemed a bit suspicious because she wouldn't let him answer the questions that were being addressed to him which made it seem like she didn't want him to say something important like the truth. I think that a key factor that helped decide the verdict of the case was when she explained how she saw the defendant put the same grip tape the stolen skateboard had. Without this, the case could have probably been different.
Q1: I think that based on the evidence provided to us he was innocent. There was no way to prove that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. with the evidence provided there were a lot of inconsistencies between the different witnesses statements. For example the information on the paper said that there was a receipt from when he bought the skateboard, but in reality there was NO receipt.
Q2: The mother's behavior as well as her responses were always trying to shield her son, make it seem like what he did was not as bad as it truly was. For example when we said if he smoked weed the mother answered for him saying "there were only trace amounts on his backpack..." But earlier the defendant himself had already said he smoked weed, which we confirmed later on. This affected the case because it appeared that the mother was hiding something and wanted it to seem that her son did nothing wrong.
1) I don't think the defendant was innocent because when we talked about the whole situation with him, he would forget things and mix certain parts of his story up.
2) The mother kept answering for her son and talking to him while he was on the stand to finalize certain parts of her side of the story which made the case not seem legit.
I do believe that the defendant was innocent due to the fact that he didn’t seem to really know why he was there and for the lack of evidence.
The mothers answers and behavior made the defendant look as if he were guilty because she wouldn’t answer the questions. She would try to change the topic to avoid the question. She also could not recall any dates which seems odd because usually you can recall at least what month your kid got expelled.
1. I think that the defendant was innocent. The only proof that there was to hold against him was all circumstantial including the supposed video of him committing the crime that we weren’t even allowed to see. There’s nothing specifically that could be used to convict him as guilty.
2. To me, the mothers answers definitely made me feel the opposite in my view of guilty or not guilty. Her answers definitely felt like she was lying. Her tone and things that she said definitely made him seem like he did it even if he didn’t.
1. I belive that the defendant was innocent although he did seem a bit slow. I believe he is innocent because there is no evidence that suggests that he is guilty. The tape should have been released so that we can see if he was one of the three boys who broke into the school.
2. The mother did seem worried about her son. She looked like she wanted to protect him. Although some questions were addressed to the defendant, the mother continued to try to budge in the conversation. If it weren't for her saying that she witnessed her son placing the tape on the new skateboard, the defendant would've probably been guilty.
A1: I believe that the defendant was innocent because there was not enough evidence to prove that he stole the skateboards or any other object. The video that was what made the defendant the first suspect wasn’t even shown. I also felt that he was innocent because he seemed like he didn’t know what was really going on.
A2: The behavior of the mother affected in a negative way the case because her comments were always in favor of her son. The mother was just thinking in how to protect her son.
Q1: I believe that the defendant was neither guilty or innocent because there was no evidence that would show he was the one in the video. If we were to get the video and saw him we could then decide from there.
Q2: The mother was leading the sons answers as well as trying to make her son look better. This affected the case because there was two stories that were being told and we didn't know which one contained the right facts.
I believe the defendant was innocent because there was not enough evidence to prove otherwise. I think he was wrongly accused.
The mother tried to make her son seem innocent. She did not, however, promise to tell the truth. I also believe that a mother is obviously going to be biased towards her son, causing her to not be honest about his innocence.
1. I believe that the defendant was guilty because there was a tape that most likely is the student due to the same haircut and backpack. Nevertheless, without the face showing, there is no definite proof of it being him.
2. He denied the claims and allowed his mother to answer most of the questions to defend him (like many mothers that would defend their child). Therefore, the mother's statement's did defend him.
1. I believe the defendant was innocent because he seemed to genuinely not believe he had done it. Moreover, the constant defense of his mother made it seem as if she truly believed it was unfair to convict his innocent son of a crime.
2. The mother's replays had a great influence to the case because she was not sworn it yet she had the most convincing statements to prove his innocence such as witnessing him put the tape on the board and his job schedule.
1. I think the defendant was innocent because there was no evidence to use against him to prove that he wasn’t.
2.Since she knew all his actions and said that she saw him with a different skateboard and him applying the grip tape.
1. From the limited evidence that was given the defendant was technically innocent. If there would have been more evidence to prove that he was guilty, the verdict would have been different, but as a jury we can't assume whether or not he's guilty.
2. The mother kept answering questions for her child and wouldn't let him answer his own questions. The answers the mom gave may have influenced what the defendant was going to say.
1. I believe the defendant was not guilty because his story added up with his moms. And he also seemed confused with what had happened at the school that’s date.
2. The mom seemed a little anxious but the defendant seemed pretty calm. The mother kept jumping in and tried answering for her son but she seemed just a little nervous.
I do think the defendant was innocent because they had no concrete evidence that he was the one who broke into the school. The school also didn’t want to show the surveillance video footage to the mother or anyone else which shows that they most likely weren’t sure that it was him or not. The mother’s answers affected the case because she stated that she witnessed her son placing new tape on his new board that he just bought.
Q1: No I believe the defendant was not guilty because they had no good strong evidence that proved he stole the skateboard
Q2: She seemed to protective and also at times she seemed like an unreliable source because she wasn't accurate with her dates. For example she didn't know when her son moved schools and when he got a job.
A1: in my opinion the defendant was innocent because there was insufficient evidence to prove him guilty without a reasonable doubt when in fact there was doubt within the evidence due to the factor that the jury nor judge was able to see the surveillance video in which he was identified. There was also the factor of the manner in which the defendant was identified due to his hair style and backpack being common within adolescents.
A2: The behavior and answers that the mother gave the audience and jury was what led most people to believe that her son was innocent. The mother was shielding her son from most questions which in turn caused most people to think that she was hiding something which she knew could have also led to his innocence.
1) I believe that the defendant was innocent especially after the school who supposedly had evidence on him didn’t show the video.
2) The mother was talking when she wasn’t spoken to and that made her son seem guilty because she wasn’t sworn in so she could’ve been lying to protect her son
1.I believe he was innocent because,there wasn’t enough evidence proving he was guilty.
2.The mother was acting any other way a mother would trying to make her son look innocent,and as if he had nothing to do with it.I believe the mother knew her son was innocent because,of the school not showing her videos of the surveilance camera
1.) I believe he was innocent,there is no real harsh evidence of it being him breaking in the school.
2.)The mother was trying to give more than what she should have. She automatically assumed the judge was against her son,but he wasn't. She was explaining too much,and when questions were given to her son,she tried to answer. She also was not helping when she couldn't give us information on dates etc.
1) I thought the defendant was innocent because you can't steal back your own property.
2) The mothers behavior was putting her son at risk because she kept answering questions for him and couldn't remember the dates of his transfer but could remember seeing the type of grip tape he put on his skateboard.
1. I dont think that the defendant was innocent at all because the jury was just focusing on the skateboard and on what he did . Another thing would be that they didnt mention anything about the incident or where was he that day the incident happened.
2. The answers and behavior of the mother was affecting the case was because she would always pump into everything he had to answer but she would answer for him and didnt give him a chance to actaully talk about what he did and what he has going on in his life . The kid would say one thing and the mother would say anothee thing. It didnt add up at all . It was a mess between them and i feel like they should be separated next time . The mother behavior affected the case by a lot .
I believe that the defendant was not guilty because i think that people judged him by the way he dresses which is also a main point to why some may think he is guilty.Although he may be not guilty i believe he wasn't because of the evidence,there wasn't enough evidence for a good verdict,so not guilty was the only right choice to make.The behavior of the mother was very odd because most of the time she was answering for her son which made sense because maybe her son was nervous and he would say the wrong things or add more to the story than needed so i'm thinking that she stepped in to avoid that.The mother responses were confident and firm except only about her evidence where she didn't have a piece of evidence,but overall the responses of the mom were very convincing.
1. I think he was Guilty because he seemed nervous whenever they would ask him questions but since there was not enough evidence, he was innocent. There were points when the answers that were connected to the last answer wouldn’t make sense.
2. The mother was affecting the case because she kept answering questions for him. She wasn’t accurate with her dates. She was over explaining everything and making things confusing.
1. I believe the defendent was guilty due to the fact that the grip tape was cut identically. He did not just lay the grip tape on the skateboard. He rearranged the griptape to his personal preference. The skateboards in the photo were identical which is 1 in a million.
2. The mother was not sworn in and thus shouldn't have spoke a word. She would answer for him which was not acceptable.
A1: I believe that the defendant was innocent because there was a lack of evidence. There was also no evidence that the defendant vandalized the school, since the video wasn’t released.
A2: the mother was being protective of her son while the questions were being asked. By the mother doing this, it led to us thinking that she was hiding something which could’ve proven her son guilty or still innocent.
Q1. I believe the defendent was innocent because there was not enough evidence. I also believe that he was innocent because him and his mom both had the same response.
Q2. The behavior of the mother made us ,the audience, and the jury believe that her son was innocent. She was also answering the questions that her son was being ask which she may thought that we were blaming him.
A1. He was not innocent due to the fact he broke into the school to steal his own stuff
A2.The mom would interrupt when the questions were being asked to the son instead of her she would stutter at times to change up what she was going to say.
I believe that the defendant was innocent because of the lack of evidence there was during the case. He was detained by the school without being shown any evidence that he was the one they were accusing of breaking in and stealing what he stole. The person who identified him was by his hair that’s not even probable cause to detained when they are susupected of stealing something and the video wasn’t shown to the jury of the defendant so how can they school can accuse a student without showing the proper evidence to convict someone of a misdemeanor.
The behavior of the mother was affecting the case in a way where she was over explaining herself to the judge and jury. She was giving too much information that wasn’t need or wasn’t asked. She was defensive over son as would any mother but her acting in that way made it seem her son was guilty and she was trying to protect her son from legal troubles.
1. I think the defendant was not innocent because he didn’t really know what was going on and the way the mom had tried to speak for him seem kinda suspicious.
2. The answers from the mother affected the case because she was saying more than what was needed she couldn’t remember any dates and she had no proof that he had a job.
I believe the defendant was guilty at the beginning when he first walked in ,but then later there wasn't strong evidence to prove he was guilty to show the defendant taking the skateboard.
I believe that the defendant was not guilty because there was really no proof of him actually stealing the skateboard along with the other stuff, also because the school officer refused to show the mother the video and because the school officer thought it was the defendant just because the hair style but he couldn't see his because the person who stole the stuff was wearing a bandana over their face.
the behavior and answers of the mother were affecting the case by making the defendant look guilty because she was saying than what she should have and kept repeating
1. I think he was guilty because the way his mother would defend him and answer the questions for him and he wouldn’t remember the answers also he said his job is by the school and he gets out @ 7:00 and the crime was committed @ 7:30 so it was enough time
2. It affected the case because she would interfere with the questions being asked to him by putting in her own input and answering the questions that were meant for him with her own justification of what she believed happened or was to the best of her knowledge “her truth” and she also didn’t have certain documents so it interfered with my judgement for trying to believe if he was guilty or not
1. I believe that the defendant was innocent because there was no strong evidence that we got to see if he did it or not because we didn’t get to see the video of the people who did break into the school
2. The mother’s attitude showed a lot about her because she wanted to make sure that her son didn’t get convicted of this crime because she had a lot of good comments about why he wouldn’t have done it
1. I believe the defendant was innocent because there was no hard evidence to prove his was guilty. They try to accuse him based on his hair style and backpack , mostly every high school stundent has the similar backpack as one another. There was no evidence to prove he was guilty.
2. The mother led us on to believe he was innocent by thand way she was answering but at time she wouldn’t make sense because she wouldn’t know specifics dates.
Q1: I think the defendant was innocent because he didn’t really seem to have or verbalize his awareness of what the case was. He answered honestly and didn’t seem to have hidden any details about his own story. Plus he seemed to have never really been in a situation where he’s in a court room and defends himself in front of a lot of people. Do for a rookie it would be hard to lie.
Q2: The mom was being protective about the situation like if the defendant really was guilty. I can see why she would do that but it doesn’t give the excuse to go overboard and try to weasel her way out of a situation her son didn’t even do or so that’s what the case lead up. The affect of this really made me iffy on if he is guilty or not. The mother messed up the flow of him being completely innocent. But he’s still innocent.
1. Yes, I do believe the defendant was innocent because the evidence they provided was not strong enough or given to the court to make him eligible to be guilty.
2. The responses the mother was giving did not help the case. She kept answering her son’s questions, making it seem like she was trying to cover something up.
Q1: I believe that the defendant was neither guilty or innocent because there was no evidence that would show he was the one in the video and his mother was quick to respond the questions for the minor . If we were to get the video and saw him we could then decide from there. But with no evidence then he really can’t be proven guilty
1. I believe the defendant was innocent because he seemed confused when asked the questions , and there was hardly any evidence to prove that he had committed the crime. Therefore without there being enough evidence one can not say he was guilty.
2. The mother seemed very defensive and when asked simple questions it seemed as if she was constantly trying to protect her son. She also couldn’t remember important details about her sons school life and even that day of the incident which makes it seem as if she is covering up for him , and makes him look guilty.
Q.1: I believe that the defendant was innocent because there was no real evidence to convict him of being guilt and also noticed that his answers seemed unprepared so it did not seem like he was prepared to lie to the court or already had a plan in deceiving the court.
Q.2: I feel like the frequent answering of the mom was affecting the decisions of the defendant and we could not hear much of his answers or opinion to the questions. Also, I feel like it was not allowing the audience to fully grasp what kind of person the defendant was and his overall behavior.