The Author gives readers clues and makes them think to figure out questions, she never gives a straight out answer. The author has events that exemplify prejudice really well. One example of prejudice in the story is the trial. Bob Ewell sues an African American man named Tom Robinson for raping his daughter. The court pleads the man guilty without any proof of rape.
Steve Harmon’s Verdict Steve Harmon is a young adolescent, who is without a doubt in my mind, innocent, until he is proven guilty. Steve Harmon’s innocence is being completely annihilated, and with lack of evidence, is being labeled as a “monster”, as Ms. Petrocelli characterizes Mr. Harmon, placing him with the delinquents who actually deserve the verdict of murder. Mr. Harmon is being charged with murder, with extreme deficiency of evidence, only just being a bystander, and is being withhold in prison, without even given a release on own recognizance (r.o.r) due for this being his first charge. Anyone who is in the same position as him is innocent, until actually proven evidence that the defendant had physical involvement in the crime. The evidence that is being held against Mr. Harmon is that he was in the drugstore, at the same time when his accomplices, Mr. Evans, Mr. King, and Mr. Cruz were robbing the store, which led to the homicide of Mr. Nesbitt.
Just how faulted is the U.S justice system? One could say that the police force has its fair share of flaws. As stated in Kenneth Jost’s “Policing the Police” article: Police departments around the country are on the defensive because of accusations of abuse of authority. Los Angeles is being rocked by a corruption scandal involving planted evidence and shooting unarmed suspects. New York City officers have been convicted of torturing a suspect and covering up the crime but acquitted in the shooting death of an unarmed civilian.
Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (1997) FACTS: Madison, Wisconsin police officers obtained a search warrant for Richards’ hotel room because they had suspicion that he was committing the felony crime of possession with the intent to deliver a controlled substance. The police officers failed to “knock and announce” prior to entering the hotel room where they ended up seizing drugs, they approached the hotel room claiming to be maintenance. Once Richards’ saw the police officers at the door, he tried to shut the door and the officers kicked it in. The Wisconsin State Supreme Court expressed the view that when you are executing a search warrant in a felony drug investigation, there is no “knock and announce” requirement. Richards sought to appeal the case and was granted certiorari.
Summary of the Case Eric Michael Clark was charged with murdering an Arizona police officer. Clark was a paranoid schizophrenic and was not able to submit evidence during his trial that would exonerate him of the ability to commit the crime charged. Under Arizona law, Clark was permitted to present evidence of his psychiatric condition to support an insanity defense. Arizona law states that an insanity defense must establish by clear and convincing evidence that as a result of mental illness at the time of the crime he “did not know the criminal act was wrong.” ("Clark v. arizona," 2006) The judge in Clark’s case refused to consider psychiatric evidence to reject his mens rea, due to nonsupport of Arizona case law. Clark’s conviction was also sustained by The Arizona Court of Appeals.
James Holmes committed brutal and lethal acts on July 20, 2012 in Colorado that were premeditated and precisely calculated; Acts that resulted in the tragic death and serious harm to several innocent, harmless civilians. In criminal trials, the insanity defense is where the defendant claims they are not responsible for their actions due to
Explain how investigators used reference samples to determine that the victims had been held at the residence located at 881 Lope De Vega. 3. Explain how investigators used reference samples to determine that the victim’s bodies had been buried and later moved to the site where they were discovered. Also explain how they used such evidence to determine the original burial place. Some of the main challenges the investigators were facing in the case involving U.S. drug agent Enrique Camarena in Guadalajara were the crime scene was not secured and was contaminated by police and people who just wanted to look.
The defendants’ attorney withdrew from the case, and the judge appointed members of the local bar, many of which withdrew from the case as well. Two attorneys represented the accused, but lacked the time to investigate the case, and the defendants were convicted. b. Issue: Did the trials violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? c. Decision & Reasoning: The Supreme Court decided that it was unconstitutional.
is not guilty but he was an accomplice for the murder of both Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman but didn’t actually kill. Instead he covered up what his son, 24 year old Jason Simpson might have done. First, the evidence such as EDTA found in O.J.’s bloody socks which was not handled the way it should have been. A pair of dark, crumpled socks found at the foot of Simpson's bed; DNA tests found the genetic markers of Simpson and his ex-wife. These pair of socks was found to be with EDTA which stops blood clotting in test tube which only meant that they had to be tampered with.
South Africa's most prolific serial killer to date, Moses Sithole stood convicted of 38 slayings in a series of "ABC Murders" committed between January and October 1995. The crimes received their media nickname from the fact that they began in Atteridgeville