It is difficult to hold prosecutors accountable for acts of misconduct. Since prosecutors are often viewed as the “good guys” by the public, many times unethical, as well as illegal acts will be tolerated by the courts and criminal justice system as a whole. Prosecutorial misconduct is considered any action taken by the prosecutor in a criminal case that is against the law and/or unethical. Prosecutorial evidence can be anything from harassing witnesses on the stand, pressing unfounded charges against defendants, tampering with evidence, withholding evidence, up to taking bribes. Prosecutors can sometimes get away with misconduct as it is extremely difficult to prove that misconduct had actually taken place.
The criminal justice system relies heavily on eyewitness identification for investigating and prosecuting crimes in that, it may be the only evidence present for identifying criminals in certain cases (Wells & Olson, 2002). The strong weight given to eye witness identifications is nonetheless a matter of concern as it eye witness identifications have been demonstrated to be flawed, even when witness confidence is high. Experience has shown that the convincing and sincere witness can often be mistaken. Memon (2008) explains where eye-witness testimonies have been greatly unreliable; where Jean Charles de Menezes was shot by police as a result of mistaken identity. According to eye-witnesses he was described as suspicious, jumped over a ticket barrier and was wearing a wearing a bulky jack supposedly concealing a device.
Some were later asked to describe the speed of the cars before they smashed into each other, others were asked the same question, but using the term hit instead of smash. In their responses, those questioned using the term smash were more likely to state that they saw broken glass, though that was false (Born, Colleen 1997). Most often, eyewitnesses are unwilling to reconsider their initial understanding once they state facts in a particular way or identify a particular individual as the perpetrator of a crime. This is basically due to memory reconstruction. In a study conducted by Barbara Tversky and Elizabeth Marsh on the vulnerability of human memory to bias, showed that participants recalled a story
Simpson case is vital to the study of criminal justice and prosecution being that the restrictions that were obvious in the testimonies of the witnesses and evidence. As a consequence incorrect verdicts were made regarding the case for the reasons that there was evidence that could not be used like the blood samples and the detectives that gave testimonies that were ambiguous. Furthermore, before any case is taken to trial the state and the defense need to be absolutely certain that they have sufficient evidence in order to maintain their case, especially since a case can be dismissed based on the prima facie evidence provided. Studying this case has certainly changed my perspective because it was obvious that more was needed to be accomplished previous to closing remarks were
False testimony, exaggerated statistics and laboratory fraud have led to wrongful conviction in several states. Since forensic evidence is offered by "experts," jurors routinely give it much more weight than other evidence. But when misconduct occurs, the weight is misplaced. In some instances, labs or their personnel have allied themselves with police and prosecutors, rather than prioritizing the search for truth. Other times, criminalists lacking the requisite knowledge have embellished findings and eluded detection because judges and juries lacked background in the relevant sciences, themselves.
Eyewitness Testimony Essay There are many factors that contribute to the accuracy of an eyewitness’ testimony in a court case, resulting in the failure of memory. These factors can include the observer’s state of mind, their expectations, their focus of attention at the time, the suddenness and stressfulness of the situation, and differences in the race or age of the witness and the accused. Memory is a selective and constructive process. Old elements of the memory can fade or be lost, while new elements are unconsciously selected and mixed into a recollection until it constructs a completely different story, and the witness it not even aware of the fact. When an onlooker witnesses a crime, the information they take in will first be sent to their sensory memory in its ‘raw’ form.
Why did Brooks knowingly lie about what Spradley said? “She had been beaten, and one of her eyes was bloodshot and swollen” (“Justia US Law, 2011) when she came into the police station earlier that year. Brooks may have thought that by making those false statements, it would give justice to what had happened to her, even though he may have been innocent of the charges currently filed against him. The third and final context to consider is criminal justice. This view is that sometimes the criminal justice system fails and non-law-abiding citizens get away with certain acts.
The jurors cannot base their certainty on concrete evidence as the play indicates that very few facts are absolute because (quote). Instead, they must make up their minds based on the apparent likelihood of various events and on their own personal beliefs. Rose portrays that when it is difficult to maintain certainty about one’s beliefs, in this case the innocence or guilt of the boy, doubt is a reasonable and intelligent state of mind. This is proven by the 4th Juror and the 11th Juror when they say they “ … now have reasonable doubt”. Each of the jurors has a different degree of certainty about the opinions they hold, but cannot be completely sure, as the 9th Juror points out “He doesn’t say the boy is not guilty.
It is because of the gross misinterpretations of this law that prevents all involved from getting a fair trial as in the Alexander, Giles and Landry cases. It encourages unlawful behavior with a crutch for assailants to lean on just like George Zimmerman and Michael Dunn. It also undermines this country's law enforcement and judicial system. Sadly, it rips justice away from victims' families. While I do not personally feel the Stand Your Ground law should be abolished, I am adamant that the law needs to be revised.
This can also have a moral dilemma involved. It can be very stressful if there is only one person who thinks the defendant is innocent and everyone else thinks he or she is guilty. So the question is do you stay to what you feel or do you go along with everyone else. Last but not least there is the judge. The Judge is there to make sure the defense and the prosecution go by the book.