CRJ 331: Week 5 Case Study 2: Justin Ross Harris

Case Study 2: Justin Ross Harris

Criteria

Unacceptable

Below 60% F

Meets Minimum Expectations

60-69% D

Fair

70-79% C

Proficient

80-89% B

Exemplary

90-100% A

1. Take a position on whether or not the judge should allow eyewitness testimony to factor into the jury’s decision on this case. Next, discuss two (2) factors which would influence a witness’s ability to make an accurate identification. Provide a rationale for your response.

Weight: 25%

Did not submit or incompletely took a position on whether or not the judge should allow eyewitness testimony to factor into the jury’s decision on this case. Did not submit or incompletely discussed two (2) factors which would influence a witness’s ability to make an accurate identification. Did not submit or incompletely provided a rationale for your response.

Insufficiently took a position on whether or not the judge should allow eyewitness testimony to factor into the jury’s decision on this case. Insufficiently discussed two (2) factors which would influence a witness’s ability to make an accurate identification. Insufficiently provided a rationale for your response.

Partially took a position on whether or not the judge should allow eyewitness testimony to factor into the jury’s decision on this case. Partially discussed two (2) factors which would influence a witness’s ability to make an accurate identification. Partially provided a rationale for your response.

Satisfactorily took a position on whether or not the judge should allow eyewitness testimony to factor into the jury’s decision on this case. Satisfactorily discussed two (2) factors which would influence a witness’s ability to make an accurate identification.  Satisfactorily provided a rationale for your response.

Thoroughly took a position on whether or not the judge should allow eyewitness testimony to factor into the jury’s decision on this case. Thoroughly discussed two (2) factors which would influence a witness’s ability to make an accurate identification. Thoroughly provided a rationale for your response. 

2. Summarize the nine (9) sequential steps that comprise the Reid technique for interrogation. Next, identify the step(s) in the process that you believe to be the most important, and support your opinion.

Weight: 20%

Did not submit or incompletely summarized the nine (9) sequential steps that comprise the Reid technique for interrogation. Did not submit or incompletely identified the step(s) in the process that you believe to be the most important, and did not submit or incompletely supported your opinion.

Insufficiently summarized the nine (9) sequential steps that comprise the Reid technique for interrogation. Insufficiently identified the step(s) in the process that you believe to be the most important, and insufficiently supported your opinion.

Partially summarized the nine (9) sequential steps that comprise the Reid technique for interrogation. Partially identified the step(s) in the process that you believe to be the most important, and partially supported your opinion.

Satisfactorily summarized the nine (9) sequential steps that comprise the Reid technique for interrogation. Satisfactorily identified the step(s) in the process that you believe to be the most important, and satisfactorily supported your opinion.

Thoroughly summarized the nine (9) sequential steps that comprise the Reid technique for interrogation. Thoroughly  identified the step(s) in the process that you believe to be the most important, and thoroughly supported your opinion.

3. Choose two (2) of the eight (8) total counts, from the indictment document, and identify the evidence that the police have uncovered to substantiate these counts. Next, identify one (1) count that you believe the police cannot substantiate with the evidence they have already disclosed. Provide a rationale to support your response.

Weight: 20%

Did not submit or incompletely chose two (2) of the eight (8) total counts, from the indictment document, and did not submit or incompletely identified the evidence that the police have uncovered to substantiate these counts. Did not submit or incompletely identified one (1) count that you believe the police cannot substantiate with the evidence they have already disclosed.

Did not submit or incompletely provided a rationale to support your response.

Insufficiently chose two (2) of the eight (8) total counts, from the indictment document, and insufficiently identified the evidence that the police have uncovered to substantiate these counts. Insufficiently identified one (1) count that you believe the police cannot substantiate with the evidence they have already disclosed. Insufficiently provided a rationale to support your response.

Partially chose two (2) of the eight (8) total counts, from the indictment document, and partially identified the evidence that the police have uncovered to substantiate these counts. Partially identified one (1) count that you believe the police cannot substantiate with the evidence they have already disclosed. Partially provided a rationale to support your response.

Satisfactorily chose two (2) of the eight (8) total counts, from the indictment document, and satisfactorily identified the evidence that the police have uncovered to substantiate these counts. Satisfactorily identified one (1) count that you believe the police cannot substantiate with the evidence they have already disclosed. Satisfactorily provided a rationale to support your response.

Thoroughly chose two (2) of the eight (8) total counts, from the indictment document, and thoroughly identified the evidence that the police have uncovered to substantiate these counts. Thoroughly identified one (1) count that you believe the police cannot substantiate with the evidence they have already disclosed. Thoroughly provided a rationale to support your response.

4. As a result of the surrounding circumstances and media attention given to this case, speculate on the likelihood of officers presuming that Justin Ross Harris is guilty and engaging in investigative bias. Determine the impact on the pursuit of justice in this case if the officers have indeed presumed guilt and engaged in investigative bias.

Weight: 20%

Did not submit or incompletely speculated on the likelihood of officers presuming that Justin Ross Harris is guilty and engaging in investigative bias. Did not submit or incompletely determined the impact on the pursuit of justice in this case if the officers have indeed presumed guilt and engaged in investigative bias.

Insufficiently speculated on the likelihood of officers presuming that Justin Ross Harris is guilty and engaging in investigative bias. Insufficiently determined the impact on the pursuit of justice in this case if the officers have indeed presumed guilt and engaged in investigative bias.

Partially speculated on the likelihood of officers presuming that Justin Ross Harris is guilty and engaging in investigative bias. Partially determined the impact on the pursuit of justice in this case if the officers have indeed presumed guilt and engaged in investigative bias.

Satisfactorily speculated on the likelihood of officers presuming that Justin Ross Harris is guilty and engaging in investigative bias. Satisfactorily determined the impact on the pursuit of justice in this case if the officers have indeed presumed guilt and engaged in investigative bias.

Thoroughly speculated on the likelihood of officers presuming that Justin Ross Harris is guilty and engaging in investigative bias. Thoroughly determined the impact on the pursuit of justice in this case if the officers have indeed presumed guilt and engaged in investigative bias.

5. Support your views with at least three (3) relevant and credible references, documented according to APA.

Weight: 5%

No references provided

Does not meet the required number of references; all references poor quality choices.

Does not meet the required number of references; some references poor quality choices.

Meets number of required references; all references high quality choices.

Exceeds number of required references; all references high quality choices.

6. Clarity, writing mechanics, and formatting requirements

Weight: 10%

More than 8 errors present

7-8 errors present

5-6 errors present

3-4 errors present

0-2 errors present