No. 202. Argued March 9, 1965. Decided April 28, 1965. Facts: In 1964 Edward Dean Griffin was brought before a court, convicted and tried for the crime of first degree murder. Griffin had been invited to the apartment of Essie Hodson and her boyfriend Eddie Seay. After all three had went to bed Seay woke up to find Griffin and Hodson struggling. Hodson claimed that Griffin had tried to force her into unwanted sex. Seay locked Griffin out of the apartment. However, Griffin broke back in and hit Seay in the head. Seay went to a nearby bar to get help and when he returned neither Hodson nor Griffin were there. The next morning, a witness saw Griffin coming out of a large trash bin in a nearby alley and noted that Griffin was adjusting his pants. The witness found Essie Hodson in the trash bin. She was bleeding and in shock. Hodson passed away the next day at a local hospital from the injuries sustained from the violent attack. Griffin was tried for the first degree murder of Essie Hodson. During trial, Griffin refused to take the stand and testify. Both the judge and the district attorney commented about Griffins silence to the jury stating: “As to any evidence or facts against him which the defendant can reasonably be expected to deny or explain because of facts within his knowledge, if he does not testify or if, though he does testify, he fails to deny or explain such evidence, the jury may take that failure into consideration as tending to indicate the truth of such evidence and as indicating that among the inferences that may be reasonably drawn therefrom those unfavorable to the defendant are the more probable." The Prosecutor also added, "These things he has not seen fit to take the stand and deny or explain and in the whol... ... middle of paper ... ...ffin v California made many important changes to American law and sat forth standards for the right to due process. The Supreme Court had already made it a law that a defendant must have the right to remain silent during legal proceedings, but now they were putting it in effect. Justice Douglas ruled that negative implications toward a defendant would be like penalizing him for exercising his own rights and this will not stand. The case proved to the citizens of America the Supreme Court was intent upon giving each and every person who found himself/herself in front of the court to have a fair trial. It also proved to potential jurors that if a defendant stays silent during trial it only means he is exercising his rights. It is not a proclamation of knowing his rights and using them rather than of his guilt. This precedent had never been so prominent to the public.
In this single moment of clarity, he is convinced that the old man is distorting the truth. He says “... He was dragging his left leg and trying to hide it because he was ashamed. I think I know him better than anyone here. This is a quiet, frightened, insignificant old man who has been nothing all his life, who has never had recognition… This is very important. It would be so hard for him to recede into the background…”(page 36) Sharing this argument, juror number nine shifts the direction of the discussion. No longer is he speaking about facts and evidence, but about an emotional connection to an old man who wants to feel important for once in his life. Although he is just assuming this based off of context clues, he manages to affect the other jurors. He manages to question the validity of the old man's testimony by connecting with him at a personal level, and for the most part it's
Fisch, Harmanpreet Kaur drank alcohol and did cocaine. She then went to Mrs. Fisch’s address,
There have been several different Supreme Court cases over the years that have been influential to most everybody who is aware of them. For example, the case of Roe vs. Wade was and still is immensely influential and is the cause of pro-life/pro-choice debates. Another important case was Marbury vs. Madison, which was the first Supreme Court case to ever declare that a law passed by Congress was unconstitutional. Even though those two cases were a couple of the most important and influential in American history nothing compares to the influence that the case of Gideon vs. Wainwright has provided, in my opinion. This case was tremendously important to the way that law enforcement is to be carried out in that it forced detectives and FBI’s and the like to “do their homework” before declaring someone guilty of a crime. Although this case was very influential on the way police forces carry out their duties, I think the case was mostly important in that it forced all courts in the U.S. to have a greater recognition of the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution and the story of the victim involved in this case.
The jury in trying to let the defendant go considered if there were any circumstances that would provide say as a self-defense claim to justify this horrific crime of murder of two people named Mr. Stephan Swan and Mr. Mathew Butler. Throughout the guilt/innocent phase, the jury believes not to have heard convincing evidence the victims were a threat to the defendant nor a sign the defendant was in fear for his life before he took the victims’ lives.
Ford v. Wainwright is historically important for the reason that it shows the concept the insane can really be executed, also that although there are rules and regulations they can be broken by people without any sort of power or people with more power than others. Although things are set for everyone to follow some people break those to break other people down. The amendments ar...
Jurors will thoroughly inspect and weigh over the evidence provided, and process any and all possible scenarios through the elements of crime. If the evidence does not support the prosecutor 's argument and the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must pronounce the defendant not guilty. If questionable or irrelevant evidence is included in the criminal proceeding, it is the duty of the prosecutor or defendant 's counsel to object and insist that the evidence be excluded by the presiding
R. v. Lavallee was a case held in 1990 that sent waves through the legal community. The defendant, Lyn Lavallee was in a relationship with her partner, Kevin Rust, in which he would abuse her both mentally and physically. On the night of the incident, Lyn and her husband got into a fight, her husband pulled out a gun and told her if she didn’t kill him now he’d be coming for her later. When leaving the room, Lyn shot Kevin in the back of the head killing him instantly. She was convicted of murder, but when brought before the Manitoba Court, she was acquitted of the charges. An appeal was made to the Manitoba court of Appeal on the grounds that expert testimony should not be admitted as evidence in the courts. They argued that the jury was perfectly
John smith, the accused, stood up in the courtroom and started yelling at the judge about what he thought of his innocence irrespective of the decision that the judge would make. He also cursed the prosecutor and kept quiet when his lawyer warned him of the negative consequences that would follow if he continued with the same behavior. Smith did not answer any question that the judge asked him. The prosecutor indicated that he had observed similar behavior when he interviewed him, in jail.
Charles O. Bonet, a prosecutor told a co-defendant witness that charges against him would not be prosecuted if he took the stand and pled the Fifth Amendment when called to testify. The judge held an in hearing, during which co-defendant witness testified that the final deal was that Mr. Bonet would make the charges go away, if co-defendant witness took the stand and pleaded the Fifth Amendment. The jury found Mr. M guilty and the Court of Appeals upheld the decision. Mr. Bonet’s conduct ethic violation,
On the morning of July 4, 1954, Marilyn Sheppard was violently beaten in her home in Bay Village, Ohio, on the shore of Lake Erie. She was four months pregnant and had been felled by 35 vicious blows (Quade). Right away Sam Sheppard was accused of being the victim to do this. Sheppard had told investigators that he had been asleep downstairs and was awakened by his wife’s screams. Sheppard said when he went upstairs and entered the room he was knocked unconscious by the intruder. He denied any involvement and described his battle with the killer he described as “bushy-haired” (Linder). After a police investigation, Dr. Sam Sheppard was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. With the hectic media covering it, they were quick in decision that it was him that committed the murder. This was an unfair trial, ruined a man’s life, and gave him no time for a career.
"That in all capital or criminal Prosecutions, a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for Evidence and be admitted counsel in his Favor, and to a fair and speedy Trial by an impartial Jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty, (except in the Government of the land and naval Forces in Time of actual war, Invasion or Rebellion) nor can he be compelled to give Evidence against himself. "
To be found guilty of first degree murder, it must be proven that killed someone with malice aforethought, meaning it was planned, premeditated. First degree murder is to kill malevolence, to kill either intentionally and deliberately or recklessly with the utmost disregard for human life. Premeditation may be fashioned immediately and does not require a lengthy period of contemplation. The death penalty is recognized in Thirty-eight states. Capital first-degree murder or aggravated first-degree murder is categorized in killings viewed as deserving of capital punishment. Life imprisonment or death penalty is the punishment resulted in a conviction. States who do not recognized the death penalty, aggravated murder carries life imprisonment. When aggravated or capital murder is committed in a heinous or monstrous fashion, it is considered homicide (Lippman, 2006).
...en of proof falling on his shoulders, Mr. Myers presented a solid case with seemingly creditable witnesses against Vole (Neubauer & Fradella, 2014, p. 33). Much to Mr. Myers chagrin, Sir Wildrid argued for the defense of his client and provided insight or evidence to discredit all three witnesses for the prosecution (Neubauer & Fradella, 2014, p. 33). While “Witness for the Prosecution” was fictional, the movie yielded “whether you were lying then or are you lying now”, which is an expression frequently used in courtrooms today (Hornblow & Wilder, 1957).
Johannes Mehserle was arrested on January 13th for the murder of Oscar Grant. Mehserle was granted bail; it was set at three million dollars (Bulwa). He testified that he thought that Oscar Grant had a weapon and was going to stock him with his stun gun but by accident he pulled out his gun. The prosecutors were trying to get him convicted of second-degree murder, by saying Mehserle was angry with Grant for resting the arres...
 3 years later, the proof of his innocence appeared. Yet, the high-ranking officers refused to open the cased.