Prosecutors can sometimes get away with misconduct as it is extremely difficult to prove that misconduct had actually taken place. Often times the prosecutor is viewed as being on the side of justice and as a result it is difficult for the defendant (who is accused of a crime) to turn the tide against the prosecution. Although during the trial both the defense as well as the judge may report a prosecutor for misconduct, this rarely happens as these reports are often dismissed. This is because as long as the prosecutions misconduct does not affect the outcome of the case, then it is tolerated, meaning that a prosecutor can harass a witness or the defendant so long as the harassment did not have anything to do with the outcome of the trial. The fact that the prosecutor works in the interests of the state can be seen as the underlying factor here.
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.
And even if DNA testing and other such scientific methods didn't exist, the trial and appeals process is so thorough it's next to impossible to convict an innocent person”. Remember, a jury of 12 members must unanimously decide there's not even a reasonable doubt the person is guilty. The number of innocent people that might somehow be convicted is no greater than the number of innocent victims of the murderers who are set
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
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.
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.
Newspapers, television, personal beliefs, internet, almost anywhere you can think of. It’s impossible to get a bias-less jury. Everyone has their own biases. Some are more prevalent than others such as this statement from Juror #10, “I don’t understand you people...you know how these people lie...they don’t care......most of them, it’s like they have no feelings.” He let racism interfere with a fair trial. Is this the kind juror you’d like having judge your case?
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
All criminal cases are attended by a court reporter, but a court reporter is required in civil hearings only if a party asks for one. Q: Which system is most effective? A: There is a continuing debate between those who believe that it is less costly and more efficient to have court proceedings electronically recorded and transcribed only when a transcript is absolutely necessary, and those who believe that having a stenographic reporter present to take down the testimony is most effective. A stenographic reporter may mishear, misunderstand, or err in taking down the words. However, even an attended electronic system may crash, despite backups.
It is only through this broader understanding and exploration of the issues that an accurate understanding of the ‘crime problem’ can be obtained. The complexities and multiple perspectives on crime are not well understood by the public. This lack of understanding runs counter to the degree by which modern society is saturated by the subject of crime. It is almost impossible to live within our current society and not in someway be affected by it. We do not need to be an offender appearing in court or a victim of crime to feel its affects.