In the process of the “A Rose for Emily” trial, my position was to verify that all accusations and statements were correct and straight from the text. During the trial, I would create additional questions or responses as the accusations presented themselves. That position was not as easy as it seemed. Looking in the text to verify what the prosecution was saying was time consuming. Note taking was also required as to not ask the same questions to the witnesses on the stand.
The research that was conducted for this trial made me question whether Emily killed Homer. My perspective did change and I truly believe that Emily did not kill Homer according to all evidence that we were able to obtain. By following the text it was hard for the prosecution to prove their case because there was no hard evidence. For the defense, our case was easier to win because all we really needed was to give the jury – one juror – the benefit of a doubt.
With the text, we could do just that. The prosecution wanted to charge Emily of the murder of Homer because she was lonely. The purchase of the arsenic was brought to the attention of the juror but could not be proven whether it was given to Homer by Emily. On the defensive side, it was perceived that Tobe was administering the arsenic in the food that was prepared by him. At the end of the story, there was no evidence that it was Homer lying deteriorated on the bed.
Overall, I believe the trial process was straightforward and fun. For better understanding of the trial process, I would recommend a layout be printed out of how a trial should be conducted. A list of objections with examples of when to use them would be helpful as well. This was a great learning experience. Allowing another class to observe our trial was nerve-wrecking but also gave the extra incentive to prove our case and win – which we did.