Two teenagers, Tim Barns and Jack Carter, were charged with murder. It was alleged that they kidnapped two 10-year-old boys and beat and tortured the boys before killing them. The victims were found in a wooded area just outside of town.

During the initial investigation, police felt there was evidence of "cult" activity, as the scene where the boys' bodies were discovered indicated that this may have been some type of "sacrifice." This directed their attention to the two local teenagers due to their clothing, tattoos, and general appearance; they also listened to heavy metal music. They stood out from the rest of the small community, which was much more conservative.

The police pressed the younger of the two teenagers, Jack, into a confession. They did not obtain written permission from Jack's father to interview him, which was required. Afterwards, a local criminal defense attorney took up the case, pro bono.

At trial the prosecution presented this confession, along with some physical evidence (clothing/fibers from the boys' homes/things) that were arguably similar to fibers found at the scene. No other specific DNA evidence tied the defendants to the scene of the crime.

There were also two witnesses who said that they overheard the two teenagers discussing the fact that they committed the murder and would commit additional murders. However, under cross examination, their testimony was not consistent with other facts. No witnesses could place them in the area of the incident on the day in question.

Despite the efforts of the defense attorneys, who specifically argued against the flaws in the prosecution's case (including the improper confession) and raised appropriate objections, the judge ruled in favor of the prosecution on several key evidentiary matters. The jury convicted the two of murder. Tim, being 18 years old at the time of the crime, was sentenced to death; 16-year-old Jack, whose confession was used to convict them, received a life sentence.

• What is the function of the criminal court jury?
• what are three reasons for the importance of juries in American society?
• do you believe that juries are generally successful in performing their intended function. Was the jury successful here?
• Does this case lead to negative impressions of the legal professional? Incorporate specific facts from the case to support your analysis.
• How might this case highlight some of the reasons why people have negative impressions of attorneys?
• Note at least three different reasons for negative impressions of attorneys. How might the public view the work of either of the sides in a positive light?